From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Otago Region)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject New Zealand (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Terrible HDR photo[edit]

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


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

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

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

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

Wines - POV?[edit]

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

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

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

Link to Peterborough?[edit]

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

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

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


Posted to my talk page:

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

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

Otago looks like africa[edit]

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

Southern Oscillation[edit]

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

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

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Northland Region which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Otago RegionOtago – The actual name of the region does not include "Region", it is just "Otago". (On the other hand, it is possible to find some sources, even governmental ones, that do include the capitalized "Region", but I believe they are in a distinct minority.) Otago already redirects here and is the primary meaning of the word (the other meanings are already at Otago (disambiguation)). (This discussion is a spin-off from this broader discussion, where it became clear that some users were uncomfortable considering all of the New Zealand region names as a group. So I'm planning on having individual discussions for them all; this is the second one. The first resulted in a name change.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support, as "Region" is not part of the official name. I note that the 2009 move from 'Otago' to 'Otago Region' does not appear to have been discussed at all. Schwede66 01:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Superfluous disambiguation. walk victor falk talk 01:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Quick question[edit]

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

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