Talk:Fiordland

Untitled

this sound is found in fiordland, answer starts with a D, can anyone help?

Drip.

Doubtful sound is one of the two commercially visited fiords... Doubtful Sound is the deepest of all the fiords at 420 metres, and is the second longest fiord at 40 km long. There are three distinct arms. Several outstanding waterfalls including the Browne Falls (619 metres) and the Helena Falls at Deep Cove. The soaring 900m sea cliff of Commander Peak is an imposing sight at the entrance to Hall Arm. Doubtful Sound is home to Bottlenose dolphins, New Zealand fur seals and the Fiordland crested penguin. At the most eastern end of Doubtful is Deep cove, outlet to New Zealands biggest hydro-station, Real Journeys and fishermen use the cove as well, also there is a lodge cattering to school groups and large partys. Thorney 21:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Reo Māori Etymology note

I reached out to Ngāi Tahu to see if there was a Ngāi Tahu source for the etymology of Te Rua-o-te-Moko, as it didn't seem to be on the Kā Huru Manu site. They pointed me to the Beattie source as the best recording of the tradition, but if there are sources in the future that come directly from Ngāi Tahu (such as a citable cultural heritage report, Kā Huru Manu, or another good source, it would be good to update the citations. --Prosperosity (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Overlap between articles Fiordland and Fiordland National Park

There is a significant overlap in content between the articles Fiordland (about the region) and Fiordland National Park. Plus there is also content in Fiordland that is needed in Fiordland National Park to make that article more complete. A high degree of overlap between these two articles seems undesirable because of the work required to maintain duplicated content. Is there a case for some rationalisation ? One possibility is to substantially trim the article Fiordland (about the region), to focus it on the boundary of the region, and relevant statistical content such as Demographics and economy. This would involve transferring and merging most of the content about history, geography and ecology with Fiordland National Park. Feedback please.__ Marshelec (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

There's a similar issue with Mount Taranaki and Egmont National Park. I feel like the best course of action would be to have most history and geography information in the Fiordland article, and information specifically about the establishment of the park in Fiordland National Park (Fiordland will always exist, but a national park could be disestablished, partitioned or expanded). This could be achieved by having a brief summary of geography in the National Park article, with a section redirect to the more detailed Fiordland article.

By the way, what are the borders of Fiordland (vs. the national park)? I've been processing Wikidata entry coordinates in Fiordland recently, and there are only a few locations that are definitely in Fiordland but outside of Fiordland National Park (a few off-shore islands outside of the park border). Prosperosity (talk) 22:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@Prosperosity: The boundaries of the Fiordland region are defined in different ways, as discussed in the article Fiordland#Boundaries.

In my suggestion to trim content from the Fiordland article (about the region), I was influenced by looking at the coverage of geography and history in some other articles about regions. However, there is wide variability between articles. For instance Taranaki and Manawatū-Whanganui have significant coverage of those topics, but Wellington Region, Auckland Region, Bay of Plenty Region and Wairarapa much less so. I also considered how to make the Fiordland National Park article as useful as possible for the reader, and it seemed to me that a full description of history and geography was worthwhile including. For instance, there are are significant historic sites within Fiordland National Park, such as the remains of early settlements in Rakituma / Preservation Inlet and places where James Cook stayed for a significant time in Dusky Sound. The protection afforded by the National Park designation protects these historic sites. So I thought that the Fiordland article could focus mostly on population, economics, boundaries and other similar details. However, I see that it would also be possible to have the main content about geography and history in the Fiordland article, and just fairly brief sections about geography and history in the Fiordland National Park article with a "further" template linking to the more detailed content.

It would be great to get a bit more feedback about which way to go, and then I will proceed with a partial merger to reduce the extent of duplication._Marshelec (talk) 00:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@Marshelec: I've found a few international articles about a geographic feature and national park that are approximately analogous:

Catskill Mountains vs. Catskill Park: history and geography primarily in the Catskill Mountains article (or rather, a subordinate page about the Catskills).

Lake District vs. Lake District National Park: national park article merged into geographic area article (most UK national park articles seem to be like this).

Yorkshire Dales vs. Yorkshire Dales National Park: history and geography primarily in Yorkshire Dales

Cairngorms vs. Cairngorms National Park: geography sections detailed in both, national park article only focuses on national park history

Stirling Range vs. Stirling Range National Park both articles have extensive geography/history sections

Dirk Hartog Island vs. Dirk Hartog Island National Park: national park merged.

Wicklow Mountains vs. Wicklow Mountains National Park: national park article brief and focused on park history.

There's likely plenty more out there, and we can't really use these as justifications for what works best for Fiordland, but of these articles, I much prefer the ones that have large detailed information in the geographic feature article, and more targeted information in the park article. --Prosperosity (talk) 00:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

We don't have to have a a one-size fits all approach, but what would the approach of having the main detailed content of geography and history in a "region" based article mean for the articles Aoraki / Mount Cook National Park, Paparoa National Park, and Kahurangi National Park. ?_Marshelec (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Paparoa and Kahurangi don't have directly equivalent regions in the same way and to the same extent as Fiordland does, and the main article for Aoraki / Mount Cook would focus on the mountain exclusively rather than the area of the national park. Turnagra (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this - it'll also be a fairly major issue at Rakiura National Park with Stewart Island / Rakiura. I think there's scope to have some overlap, but I'd include the bulk of the detail about the region itself in the Fiordland article and then focus the national park article on the park itself (with some content on the area still as appropriate). I think we could look to something like Yosemite National Park for inspiration, with how it also has articles such as Geography of the Yosemite area and Geography of the Yosemite area, but still covers those topics in the main Yosemite article. Turnagra (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)