Talk:Transmission Gully Motorway

	Roads portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Highways, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of highways 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.HighwaysWikipedia:WikiProject HighwaysTemplate:WikiProject HighwaysHighways articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Oceania Highways Task Force.

New Zealand Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal 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.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Marines[edit]

An anon has removed the following text with the edit summary "No evidence Marines offered to build motorway".

There are anecdotal accounts that the American Marines were keen to build a road inland through Transmission Gully in World War II to avoid the exposed coastal route south from their MacKay's Crossing camp to other camps in the Pauatahanui, Titahi Bay and Mana areas, but the government did not have the material (concrete) to spare.

I am not opposed to the removal, but it did prompt me to look for a source, and I found End of road for 'urban myth' on Stuff, 10 August 2013, by John Bishop. This source could be used if the text is restored.-gadfium 19:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The IP was right to remove the unsourced content. If we can however rewrite this paragraph, using a reliable source, then I don't have an issue. Ajf773 (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Official name[edit]

New official name for the road (Maori: Te Ara Nui o Te Rangihaeata, English: The Great Path of Te Rangihaeata). May not warrant a change in the name of the page, but could be mentioned nonetheless. What do you guys think?

https://streetnames.nz/new-zealand/te-ara-nui-o-te-rangihaeata/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phenomenalcat5 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mention on the article lead. But I don't think it's significant enough to change the article's title. Ajf773 (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article titles are determined through the concept of WP:COMMONNAME and not through WP:OFFICIAL NAME. Schwede 66 03:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, really?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.130.153.130 (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Schwede 66 23:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maintained by...[edit]

This says it's Waka Kotahi the NZ Transport Agency but under the PPP I believe Veolia, a private company, is contracted to maintain it for a 25 year period. 210.246.44.125 (talk) 10:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance (correction)[edit]

Per my previous note, sorry I meant Ventia, not Veolia. Dominion Post TG 20-page insert, 31.3.22, pg 4: "Ventia is the company that [WGP] has subcontracted to operate and maintain the motorway for the next 25 years." 210.246.44.125 (talk) 10:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request to move[edit]

I've only ever heard it called "Transmission Gully". Articles like https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/ev-owners-warned-to-plan-charge-ahead-of-using-transmission-gully/VQXZ2KOTNXXK5TOOPMIT5O5EUM/ call it simply Transmission Gully, while on the Waka Kotahi website, https://www.nzta.govt.nz/projects/wellington-northern-corridor/transmission-gully-motorway/, the "motorway" is decapitalised. In short, its name is basically just 'Transmission Gully'. I think calling it Transmission Gully Motorway is a bit long and redundant with the latter part.--Aubernas (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with that. Schwede 66 04:59, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight[edit]

I think there's too much detail in the article about the hearings, delays, controversy and so on, that was current before it opened, but is now much less relevant, and could be summarised/culled. — Jon (talk) 08:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]