Talk:Stewart Island

Population

Is it "just under 400" per first paragraph - or 236 as stated under the map?"

Any consensus yet? The gap is huge. GrahamBould 10:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This discrepancy is still there. Oban, New Zealand says that place had a population of 387 in 2001, which would make the 236 figure impossible. 81.158.2.114 11:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just updated the population (and density) from the 2013 census, to 381 for Stewart Island. The article's template has a value of "largest city", currently set to 322. I can't find any info in the NZ census tables for Oban, though, so I don't know where to find the latest figure, if there even is one. Can anyone update this properly? Izogi (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Article name

I propose changing the name of this article to the official name of the island, viz. Stewart Island/Rakiura (see LINZ http://www.linz.govt.nz/rcs/linz/pub/web/root/core/placenames/index.jsp ). Apart from the first use in the intro, I have no problem with a shorter form of the name, e.g. Stewart Island, being used in the article. Any objections? Nurg 08:05, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

sounds OK - might need redirect pages at both Stewart Island, New Zealand and Rakiura though... Grutness 05:06, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Maori name for the island is unusued by and unknown to English speakers. A Wikipedia article name should reflect what the place is called in the English language, otherwise calling this article Stewart Island/Rakiura is no different from renaming France to France/Française, Germany to Germany/Deutschland, Auckland to Auckland/Tāmaki Makau Rau and so on. There is a Te Reo Maori edition of Wikipedia, that is where all articles should be named in Maori, and likewise with all other respective languages. Otherwise, this is going to become very silly very fast. User:203.109.252.196 11:20, August 6, 2005

To the contrary. As language evolves, so too do naming, and eventual usage. Kids were taught at school that the mountain near New Plymouth was called Egmont. Now they are taught it is called Mount Taranaki, and that's what they call it, (some older Taranaki-ites probably excepted). By government decree, Stewart Island/Rakiura is the official name, combining two of New Zealand's official languages, and that name must be printed on official maps/signage etc. It is not strictly so that Wikipedia article names should "reflect what it is called in the English language". Wikipedia has to reflect changing reality, not someone's wishes. Click on Burma for an example. Would you suggest that Myanmar should be changed back to Burma because that is the name you are comfortable with? Furthermore, you are drawing a very long bow when you say it is no different from renaming France to France/Française. There is a world of difference. France/Francaise means the same thing twice. Stewart Island/Rakiura recognises two totally different things -- (1) Captain William Stewart who in 1809 was the first to accurately chart the island, and (2) Rakiura, the name that Maori used for untold centuries, which (roughly) translates as Glowing Skies, maybe referring to the island's super sunsets, or for the aurora australis lights that are particularly spectatular there. Moriori 00:24, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Point Pegasus or Port Pegasus?

I see mention in this article of Point Pegasus. Is this the same place as Port Pegasus, or are the two separate?Grutness 09:22, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Deleted text

"The people of these islands are also exempt from requirements to pay taxes, yet still receive government welfare and other services. This reflects the long-running tension between the desire of the government to retain the islands (which have major strategic importance), and the growing awareness amongst the islanders of their unique respective cultures and languages. Whether this conflict can be resolved peacefully remains to be seen." Is any of this true?

"A third, more controversial suggestion, has been made by Gavin Menzies, author of the book 1421: the Year China Discovered the New World. His contention, that many of the southern place-names in New Zealand show collateral evidence for the impact of cometary debris in the 1420s, has not gained widespread scientific acceptance." Is there a single serious linguist who accepts this? I doubt it. Nurg 06:11, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Disambig needed

Just to annoy everyone I've linked Darwin Sound, South America to Stewart Island, but when checking the link this showed up: con the title go to the american one, or do you want something else done?...dave souza 10:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the link. Would you like to create a Stewart Island (Tierra del Fuego) article?. Cheers Moriori 19:45, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

title?

Why is this article called Stewart Island/Rakiura, in common, english daily useage, it is only called Stewart Island. If this format is keeped South Island should be moved etc... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Brian New Zealand

The Assertion re the South Island is wrong, as neither Te Wai Pounamu nor Te Waka a Maui has any official status. As of 2009 the names board is (somewhat controversially) considering a Māori name for each Island, but the indication is that it would be an alternative name (designated as "South Island or he aha hoki*" rather than "South Island/He aha hoki") so it will still be a different situation from Stewart Island/Rakiura.

* He aha hoki = "whatever". dramatic (talk) 02:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It is called Stewart Island/Rakiura because its name is Stewart Island/Rakiura. Same as we call Aoraki/Mount Cook Aoraki/Mount Cook. I am unsure what you mean by your last sentence. Moriori 21:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for not signing, I'm sure i added it :)

I mean for the South Island we should be renamed to South Island/Te Wai Pounamu

Untill I read this page I had never heard it called Stewart Island/Rakiura. btw some (alot of) New Zealanders still call Mt Cook by its name, and Mt Egmonut by its name.

The Maori name for the Stewart Island is unusued by and unknown to English speakers. Brian | (Talk) 23:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not "the Maori name for the Stewart Island" but the official name of the island, incorporating Maori and English. It is most certainly not "unusued by and unknown to English speakers". Granted, it is taking longer for some people to adapt that's to be expected. Some older folk still talk in inches, feet, yards and miles. Moriori 00:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay :) I had never heard of it before now, I asked a couple of people and they had not heard of it either :) for intrest when did that become the offical name? could that be written somehow into the article? and maybe something about how a lot of people refer it it as Stewart Island Brian | (Talk) 00:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Could/should something be written into the article? Not unless heaps of other articles are changed too, such as what some people call Somes Island in Wellington Harbour or White Island in the Bay of Plenty. Click on them to see their correct names. Maybe we could have an article dealing with the progressive naming/renaming of places in NZ. Go to it. Moriori 02:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that its a bit sad that many of our society fail to keep up with that renaming process, I know its not intentional, I believe that the places should never have been renamed from the name that they had when Europeans arrived, in my POV. I am really happy with Rakiura and have used it myself for around 10 years, since discovering that Rakiura loosely translates as great glowing in the sky and refers to aurora australis frequently seen in the area. I worked at Waituna Farm next to Waituna lagoon in 1994 and took images of the aurora from Invercargil and Bluff overlooking Rakiura/Stewart Island. To honour that experience i took rakiuraimages as my future art website, and I have my 1994 rakiura images photos at: aurora australis photos. LINZ publishs the official names that are approved by a geographic board for New Zealand, there can be no confusion. Lets just be happy sharing the titles in this new era of collaboration . moza 18:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

That's cool, but let's be clear that Wikipedia is not "our society" where "us" is "New Zealand". Wikipedia is international, and its policy is to use common English-language names for things, peope, and places. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 19:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's be equally clear that Wikipedia reflects change as well. Click on Calcutta and Bombay and Ivory Coast as examples. It can take a long time for people to adapt to change. For instance, the CIA factbook hasn't yet caught up with Stewart Island/Rakiura, but its 2004 edition adopted Aoraki-Mount Cook as the name of NZ's highest mountain. Moriori 22:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't really agree with that. Wikipedia reflects changes once those changes have altered standard English usage. I have no idea why Calcutta, Bombay, and Ivory Coast have been moved; but, if they don't have a good reason, there's no reason to copy that mistake here. Here is the polcy on using common names. Now, policies aren't always set in stone and I'm very comfortable with WP:IAR, but a policy generally reflects a strongly established consensus of editors, and we should be very careful about going against that. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 03:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

On the one hand you say "Wikipedia reflects changes once those changes have altered standard English usage" and then say you "have no idea why Calcutta, Bombay, and Ivory Coast have been moved". They have moved because they reflect the changing standard English usage of their official names. If people ignored the changes, they would effectively block them from ever becoming "altered standard English". Nothing can change unless we accept it. Wikipedia has enough critics already but refusing to acknowledge that some countries have changed names of geographic locations would earn us many more critics IMMHO. Moriori 04:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with "Nothing can change unless we accept it," if by "we" you mean "Wikipedia". Wikipedia follows changes that have already occurred outside of Wikipediad. It's an interesting hypothetical to consider how Wikipedia would handle things in the future if we become such a large source of information that people are following our lead on what to call things, but we're not there yet. In the cases above, I find it hard to believe that the common name for Calcutta and Bombay has really changed (Ivory Coast, I don't really know about). Likewise, for Stewart Island, is there any evidence that it's common name has changed? "Stewart Island/Rakiura" gets only 20,000-some google hits, whereas "Stewart Island" alone gets over 700,000. Even the Stewart Island website (http://www.stewartisland.co.nz) seems to use "Stewart Island" by itself in most cases. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 19:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that as wikipedia is 17th most popular site worldwide it is in fact very much the leader, for better or worse, despite the policy to be a follower and no original research etc. There is a cognitive dissonance here between the intent to copy only whats alraedy published and proven; and the ability for anyone to edit at any time, and publish immediately known information. I think there may be multiple layers of activity that need to be recognised for what they are. Sometimes publishing un-verified information allows the verification to emerge as a result, I think that process may be informal but it happens more than most care to acknowledge. Personally I'm not gonna hide my head in the sand. Humans fall into many categories of behaviour, and I'm an 'early adopter' so its hard for me to understand the resistance to change. I actually see incredible arrogance in sailing across the world and renaming places that have already been named for thousands of years by the HUMANS that lived there. It was a 'gunpowder' mentality that became 'science'. I dont even like the names they chose, they were often simplistic and therefore downright stupid! I live in the 'NORTH' 'ISLAND' of 'NEW' 'SEA LAND'. How creative... not. For all that I will still insist on using the official agreed and published names, there are 55,000 approved and availble on a free download from Land Information New Zealand. I'm licensed to their data supply, and thats the only reference I'm going to take notice of.moza 02:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Like Brian asked before, could someone provide details of when the official change was made? Changes like this are interesting and could easily be worked into the article IMO Mattlore 08:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not against calling the article "Stewart Island", and I accept that the official name is "Stewart Island/Rakiura", but having the slash in the article name makes confusing reading in the URL. Would putting the "Rakiura" in brackets like these () work, even if just for the URL? Trombonator Lord Dark 08:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Territorial Authority

I was under the impression that the Territorial Authority covering the island is Southland District, and not Stewart Island/RakiuraSkinsmoke 01:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

??????????? The article clearly says "in local government terms, the island is part of Southland District". Moriori 01:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I am referring to the boxed information where it states that the 'Territorial Authority' is Stewart Island/Rakiura. I understood that there is no such territorial authority under New Zealand's local government legislation.Skinsmoke 01:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm. In which case it would be silly to have both territorial and regional in the box. However I think in this case territorial is community board and regional is district council. Hopefully someone from down that way can elucidate. Moriori 02:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Stewart Island, along with Ruapuke and adjacent island groups, comprises the Stewart Island Ward of Southland District and elects one Councillor to the Southland District Council. The Southland District Council is the territorial local authority. I am not absolutely certain of the legal status of community boards but I believe the Stewart Island Community Board is considered to be a committee of the Southland District Council. Hope this clears up the confusion. Daveosaurus (talk) 10:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Surely the pattern should be the same for other areas of New Zealand. The general pattern is to include the population etc for the City, Town, Village (or in this case Island), then to indicate the Territorial Authority (in this case Southland District) then the Region (in this case Southland Region). Southland District and Southland Region are not the same (don't blame me for New Zealand's confusing local government system - I'm in England!)Skinsmoke 02:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Fauna

I don't think Kakapo are thriving - haven't they all been removed before they were wiped out? Of course, they no doubt did well on Stewart Island before man came along! GrahamBould 13:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Stewart Island, the Name

Before reading this article, I had never before in my life heard 'Rakiura'. I have lived in the South Island my entire life. Also, I have never before on a map seen Rakiura in place of, or along side Stewart Island. Furthermore, I think if one of New Zealand's 3 'main' Islands was to be renamed, i.e. Rakiura added, then the media etc would ensure people actually new about it. Infact, you can go to Stewart Islands own website, and read the history of their name, see: http://www.stewartisland.co.nz/About%20the%20People%20and%20the%20Island/The%20Naming%20of%20Stewart%20Island.html the LINZ website is an informative website but has no legal naming right. That falls with the NZ Geographic board, who, pending any change in the name, would Gazette the change first and take submissions. Stewart Island, as its residents will tell you, is Stewart Island. --Hayden5650 12:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Hayden5650

We should establish what the legal name is. I'm not sure how to go about this. I would have thought the New Zealand Geographic Placenames Database kept by LINZ was authoritative, but I'm willing to take Hayden's word that it isn't. In the meantime, I'm fairly sure that Rakiura is the more commonly used Maori name, though it is certainly less commonly used than Stewart Island, and have changed the article accordingly.-gadfium 19:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hayden, the New Zealand Geographic Board decisions are available on the LINZ website, and the LINZ database is official[1]. Stewart Island/Rakiura was officially renamed, along with another 87 places, as part of the Ngai Tahu settlement[2]. --Limegreen 22:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I am a New Zealander from Chrischurch New Zealand and I have never heard Stewart Island called RAKIURA were in the world did you get the idea that it was known by that I bet you only about 5% or less of the Population of The South Island (no Idea abouth the North)would ever call it that

Exactly, and I have asked many people about this matter, non of whom have ever heard of the name rakiura. When it is debatable whether this name even exists legally on paper, and is certainly not used or even known of, it has no place on Wikipedia in the naming of an article. People come here for information, not opinion and not to have a small group of maoris opinions forced upon them. --Hayden5650 10:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It is the legal name. There is zero doubt, if you follow the links. Also, one of the reasons why one person asking people they come across is a bad idea is that you tend to come across people exposed to similar things. Thus, you poll people and find no-one knows, but every body I know does know it. You obviously missed the name change in 1998, and the opening of Rakiura National Park in 2002. And it is used, even people who live on the island (e.g., [3]).--Limegreen 11:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it, and I don't even know the fellow who posted just before. Sometimes things are legal on paper. I'm an engineer and work with roads/highways. There is things called paper road. It exists on paper, but you sure as heck can't drive on it, nor would you put it on a map or direct people to it. The same is the case here. Also, according to the 2001 census, 93.2% of people affiliated with the European ethnicity, so I doubt they would call it Rakiura. And also, if you follow the link; [4] you will see that it is referred to soley as Stewart Island. The Statistics NZ department is just as official as LINZ, if not more so, and they are not even using the name Rakiura. Maybe we could include a 'Controversy' section at the end of the article with reference to a naming dispute or something of the like. However, Rakiura certainly should not appear throughout the article as if it is a common, known and used name. If a tourist was to land in NZ, in anywhere but your town, Limegreen, and asked for directions to Rakiura I'm sure they would receive some funny looks and stammere answers indeed.

I'm quite familiar with paper roads. There are several paper streets in the "block" where I live. You might have noticed, however, that sometimes paper roads become actual roads, some are "stopped", and some just stay as paper roads. And sometimes placenames change names. There are some suggesting that Palmerston North may become Manawatu City for example. The New Zealand Geographic Board (on the LINZ) site are the arbiters of placenames, not Statistics New Zealand. And just because someone has a European ethnicity doesn't mean they share your opinion. You need to produce something more definitive. --Limegreen 12:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou, Limegreen, as you are completely correct. Paper roads may someday become roads, but until they are used they are not advertised. The same with Palmerston North. Some may even call it Manawatu City now, but I strongly doubt it as I've never heard anything of it, hence the article is named soley Palmerston North. I have no objection to Rakiura being mentioned and discussed in the article, however I do object to it being presented as being equal to the real and used name Stewart Island. Also, I think the link is posted somewhere above, Stewart Island's own website see's fit to only list Stewart Island as the name.

The name is becoming used. This process will probably take a generation or two, but given that it was changed by the National Government, has been preserved by a Labour Government, there is unlikely to be a change back to just Stewart Island. I would assume that when kids are doing geography at school they have, or will have soon, maps with Stewart Island/Rakiura on them. Thus, much like the metric system, younger people will end up growing up with the new name, and older people will probably continue to mostly think of it just as Stewart Island. People you know, or people I know aren't a good index of what people actually use, so it's hard to tell what the most "used" name is (but there are people using both). The official name is clear. I'm not sure what the "real" name is. And it is also likely that the use of the new official name will increase over time. --Limegreen 21:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest to put a paragraph on the renaming of the island into the section about its name (And when was the renaming?). You could add an encyclopedic rendering of the issues in this discussion. That would be a solution of this debate, I think. Soczyczi 11:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Does this article somehow fall outside the provisions of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 14:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It falls under Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand), which says "New Zealand placenames are written simply as the place name".-gadfium 20:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It's hard for me to tell whether you know this already, but it is clear from context that what this means is that places in New Zealand should be titled Christchurch rather than Christchurch, New Zealand, Auckland rather than Auckland, New Zealand, etc. It has nothing to do with the policy on using common names.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 03:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

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.-gadfium 23:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The result of the move request was moved. Wikipedia:Naming conventions prefers the most commonly used name to the official name. No one has presented an argument that the double name is the most-used. -- Aervanath (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this move. Please find consensus before making controversial moves.-gadfium 04:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. The naming convention used to reach this decision by Aervanath in full states that the common name is to be used "except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication". In this case, the New Zealand naming conventions suggest the current name. As such, the reasoning behind the closing of this move request was faulty. Grutness...wha? 05:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As I stated on my talk page, Wikipedia policy on using the most easily recognized name overrides local naming conventions. If you believe that I have closed this improperly, please resort to WT:RM or WP:AN to ask for other admins to review my decision. Until then, please leave the page where it is. Thank you.--Aervanath (talk) 05:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You appear to have this backwards. Please read WP:Naming conventions (common names). You don't even have to read very much, just the box near the beginning which gives the guideline in a nutshell.-gadfium 06:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

See WP:AN#Stewart Island/Rakiura.-gadfium 06:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I have struck Aervanath's conclusion, as no one has contributed to this discussion for almost two months. As suggested by Aervanath, a discussion on the attempted close was raised at Administrator's noticeboard. A later attempt to strengthen the common name policy and weaken more specific naming conventions Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions/Archive 13#Strengthen COMMONNAME failed.-gadfium 23:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

---

I propose to move this to Stewart Island, which redirects to this entry, so it appears to be unambiguous; the above discussion strongly suggests that this is current local usage.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as nom. Double names are undesirable. Official usage should be followed when and only when it becomes common usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Standard practice is to use the official names where possible for New Zealand geographical articles - this is one of many to use the official bilingual naming. Note that much of this talk page is discussion of the name, much of it giving explicit reasons why the article name is the way it is. there is a redirect from Stewart Island, moving the article there would be both unnecessary and incorrect. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per Grutness. To call it by other than the official name is to open up a whole can of worms for numerous other articles on New Zealand places, where commonly used names are offensive slurs on the official name. I'm not suggesting that the name "Stewart Island" is itself offensive.-gadfium 01:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support. There is no citation in the article that uses, requires, or advocates this name. Wikipedia is not required to follow the diktat of New Zealand's (or any other) government, especially if it contravenes WP:UCN (use common names). This name format is not used in the text of the article or in referring to places on the island (e.g., Half Moon Bay, Stewart Island). The current title is vaguely justified by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand) but local naming conventions should not differ so significantly from naming conventions (i.e., WP:UCN, WP:UE, issues with strokes/slashes). Some of this is summed up at WP:OFFICIALNAMES. — AjaxSmack 02:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Rakiura" is well known to mean Stewart Island (and has indeed been a name for the island for longer than "Stewart Island" has been). For example, the majority of the island's land area is the Rakiura National Park. Daveosaurus (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC) - Furthermore, if anything to do with Stewart Island is to be shifted, it would be much more appropriate for "Half Moon Bay" to be shifted to "Halfmoon Bay", which is correct usage as per LINZ (source: Terralink Fish Eye) and NZ Post (source: Postcode Finder). Daveosaurus (talk) 12:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support There are large parts of the world where there are genuine disputes about different names, but this approach is a can of worms. We have to take a definite decision one way or the other. PatGallacher (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support There is an extensive scientific and botanical literature covering Stewart Island, and I find virtually no mention of the location as other than Stewart Island. Much of this literature is quite contemporary. A section in the article discussing name controversy would be splendid, but to germinate confusion for the sake of political correctness is not a good path for wikipedia. kind regards. Kiwikibble (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, official (legal?) unambiguous placename per LINZ [5]. There is another Stewart Island in Nelson [6]. LINZ is an authoritative source for New Zealand placenames. XLerate (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: if we are not going to use the official name, then we ought to be using Rakiura since it has the longest history of use (with a hundred-year blip where the European renaming held precedence). The scientific community does seem to be relatively conservative with regard to place names (viz Egmont Volcano), presumably for reasons of backward compatibility with earlier publications. That doesn't mean that we have to be.dramatic (talk) 01:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. It's not Wikipedia's job to advocate a particular point of view (WP:NOTAFORUM / WP:NOTADVOCATE) but to describe what exists. Even if Rakiura is more politically correct and/or Stewart Island too conservative, Wikipedia should reflect the island's common, English name. — AjaxSmack 03:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

A common name that is in the process of changing. My not-quite 7-year-old has been taught Rakiura at school, even though their atlases are out of date. There is no effective way of gauging how far through the transition we are. But for Wikipedia to assert via the article title that the old name is more significant is highly POV. In the end, Stewart Island, Rakiura and Stewart Island/Rakiura all lead to the same article. dramatic (talk) 05:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose As far as I understand it Stewart Island/Rakiura is the full name, they are not alternate names as was proposed for the North & South islands recently. That means that they both should be used together, not either or Mattlore (talk) 07:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment: the current title appears to be the legal name since 1 Oct 1998 [7][8]. XLerate (talk) 07:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have added similar information to the article. Can't understand why no one had done it previously. dramatic (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Surely this is a similar situation to Ynys Môn|Anglesey in Wales or Bolzano/Bozen in Italy. Those are the official names. However, in English they are referred to by one of those names, Anglesey and Bolzano respectively, and not by the dual version. The Wikipedia naming policy specifically advises NOT to use the and/or version, but to use the version most common in English for the English Wikipedia. This is a policy that seems to have worked successfully in Ireland, Wales, Belgium, Canada, Finland, Scotland and Switzerland, and I can see no reason why it should not work equally well in New Zealand. If, as at Caernarfon, Ceredigion or Porthmadog, the official name is changed from one language to the other, then the name should change in Wikipedia too.

Having said that, the rule set out at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand) is quite clear :-

Rules of Maori place names are still under discussion, but at present, where the usual name of a place is Maori, macrons are not used in the name. Where the usual name is English but there is also a Maori name, macrons are used in the Maori name. Thus Whakatane is simply Whakatane, but Christchurch is also listed within the article as Ōtautahi. Where the official name of the place includes both English and Maori names the order given by the New Zealand Geographic Board[9] is used (e.g., Aoraki/Mount Cook, Stewart Island/Rakiura, Whakaari/White Island). 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 order in which the two names are listed is not fixed, but is often by preponderance of normal usage. A redirect from the alternative order of names is desirable in these cases.Skinsmoke (talk) 03:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. The island does not have dual English and Māori names. The official name is "Stewart Island/Rakiura". "Stewart Island" is not an official name, nor is "Rakiura".-gadfium 09:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Naming....again

Eh, I'm a year 9 (form 3), and 'they haven't taught us anyhting about Rakiura being a name for...well...anything at all. If they're not teaching me this, how is anyone else supposed to know? I'm not arguing about official stuff, but i agree with everyone else. It isn't the more widely used name. Or widely known.122.57.139.225 (talk) 08:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Teachers and schools don't know much everything. Maybe they need to shape up. Kahuroa (talk)

Agreed.122.57.141.253 (talk) 05:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Legend of Maui - Link to Title

Does anyone think it should be made clear that very few Maori ever migrated further south than the Malborough Sounds before European settlers's began arriving. Therefore it is very unlikely that the Maori people even discovered Stewart Island before European settlement and thus its original name was in fact "Stewart Island"! Also the legend of Maui's canoe is also somewhat of a historical fallacy, only existing after maps of the New Zealand islands were produced by Europeans so the reference to Stewart Island being Maui's anchor stone is relatively irrelevant. Unsigned entry by TheHawk123 at 14:45, 9 November 2011

No to your question. No to your discovery hypothesis. No to your fallacy hypothesis. And no to your anchor stone hypothesis. Moriori (talk) 02:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It should not be "made clear" because there is absolutely no reliable source to back up those claims. There were Māori settlements all around the South Island. Just in the Southland area there were Colac, Pahia, Ruapuke and Oue, to name but four. I suggest you go and read yourself some Herries Beattie. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Island list

Added a major island list onto the description box. I think this is needed since its a quick way to jump some of these important places. ⁓⁓⁓⁓ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grapeman4 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Threats and Preservation section Questions

I fixed up the grammar and a run-on sentence in this section. But two things stood out as unclear to me, so I could not fix them.

1. "As the island has always been sparsely populated and there has never been very much logging, much of the original wildlife is intact, including species that have been devastated on the larger islands to the north since their habitation by humans."

Should that actually say, "since settlement by Europeans", or were some populations on other islands devastated by the Maori?

2. The earlier wording made it clear that cats, rats, etc. did not historically threaten indigenous wildlife. But the wording was unclear as to whether cats, rats, etc. currently present a threat to the indigenous wildlife, or whether they present a potential future threat to indigenous wildlife.

So I had to leave that unclear. Someone should do a further fix with that info.

(1) Bird extinctions pre-date the arrival of Europeans, most notably that of the Moa.

(2) They didn't historically threaten indigenous wildlife because they weren't here - dogs and rats arrived with the Māori some time in the 12th or 13th centuries, cats and stoats with the Europeans from the 18th century onwards.

This isn't my area of expertise so I'd be reluctant to change too much. As it is your changes have improved the clarity of the sentence so I think they should stand. Daveosaurus (talk) 02:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 26 July 2014

Stewart Island / Rakiura → Stewart Island – Stewart Island|The guideline WP:NCNZ#Dual and alternative place names says that we should use dual names (like "Stewart Island / Rakiura") "if there are sources which indicate that a dual name has usage beyond mandatory official usage". Google news search gives 0 (zero) results for "Stewart Island / Rakiura" [10], 65 results for "Stewart Island" and 60 for "Rakiura". Google Books search returns 6.310 results for "Stewart Island / Rakiura", but most are about the Rakiura National Park. When the "National Park" is excluded, there are 3.140 results [11]. On the other hands, Google Books returns 106.000 results for "Stewart Island", ("Rakiura" excluded)[12]. I think that this clearly shows that there is almost no usage of the dual name "beyond mandatory official usage". Vanjagenije (talk) 01:36, 26 July 2014 (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.

• Rename to something. WP:SUBPAGE, MOS:SLASH, we should avoid using slashes in article titles, as it has the appearance of a subpage. If nothing else, use a dash Stewart Island—Rakiura, or use Rakiura, or use Stewart Island; but something should be done. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments: