The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 04:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
It is the title used throughout the legal info on their website, and has about twice as many Google hits. But I think the existing title is better per WP:ABREV, titles such as U.S. State Department are spelt out fully. NZ is fine for Kiwis, but may not be so well known internationally. XLerate (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I would support the move given that it is both the common name, and the name used by the organisation itself. YeshuaDavid (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm inclined not to rename. While NZ is a standard abbreviation for New Zealand, I don't think it's as universally recognised as USA or US for United States of America, USSR for Soviet Union, or even UAR for United Arab Emirates. Almost everyone would recognise the curent title for what it is, but fewer the proposed title. If that's true... and our current redirect and disambiguation structure supports the view that it is... then the proposed new name is acceptable, but the current name is better according to WP:NC. The official name isn't all that relevant. Andrewa (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The official name is New Zealand Transport Agency, as it says in the article, and I'm not convinced by the argument that NZ is an obscure title for New Zealand. The clincher for me is that the organisation refers to itself as NZ Transport Agency, making that easily the most common name. YeshuaDavid (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's true that NZ Transport Agency is easily the most common name, nor valid to argue that just because the organisation uses this abbreviation in its website, that makes it the most common name. Their website is written primarily for NZers, while ours is written for all English speakers. Andrewa (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I haven't seen this page before today, and I am immediately struck that it seems very odd to have the controversy over the make-up of the initial board in the leader section. I don't want to downplay the controversy, but it's not the organization's purpose nor its a defining feature, so I would expect the controversy would be in a separate section. I will make an edit to that effect shortly, and I encourage anyone who would like to revert it or support it, to discuss it here. Martin Kealey (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)