Talk:Harwoods Hole

cave depth
Hi. The depth reference likely refers to the whole cave, connecting through to the bottom exit, not only the hole and original cave. The info is also found that way in the reference – please do not change referenced material unless you have a conflicting reference. Cheers. Ingolfson 01:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah; I see the problem now. Please note that "HH" and "Harwood's Hole" are not the same cave (I've been in both). I have recorrected the Harwood's data and removed the reference to it formerly being deepest in NZ, as that distinction belongs to HH, not Harwood's Hole. Ian mckenzie 00:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

...and I stand corrected on Harwood having previously held the depth record, and have restored that bit, but not the second website reference as that ref mentions HH but not Harwood Hole. See http://caves.org.nz/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/NZSS/DeepestCaves for a ref that includes both HH and Harwood Hole in their proper places. Ian mckenzie 00:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

not the deepest sinkhole in Southern Hemisphere
There are much deeper sinkholes in Southern Hemisphere: Minyé sinkhole in Papua New Guinea 510 m (and many more giant sinkholes in PNG), Lomes Longmot in Indonesia (330 m), Lago Azul in Brazil (>274 m). http://www.wondermondo.com/Best/World/Sinkholes.htm Daarznieks (talk) 10:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep; you ought to have corrected the article and removed the reference. I'll do that now. Some Wikipedians think that internet references don't need verifying; they do. Ian mckenzie (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 30 November 2019

 * The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Harwood Hole → Harwoods Hole – I'm surprised to find this article as the name that it's at, as it's commonly known as Harwoods Hole (be it with or without a possessive apostrophe). I've had a look online and it appears that the spelling without apostrophe is more common, and certainly more frequently used in reliable sources. But even if editors find that the version with apostrophe is more suitable, that's still better than the current article name.  Schwede 66  17:07, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally, i'd move it to Harwoods Hole and use Harwood's Hole as a redirect. Sadly, NZ tends to (incorrectly) eschew the apostrophe. However, note the discussion under "Cave depth" above which suggests they are two different caves. Grutness...  wha?   06:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Harwoods Hole, with no apostrophe, is the official name (https://gazetteer.linz.govt.nz/place/22314), gazetted in 2015 (https://gazette.govt.nz/notice/id/2015-ln6235). Maybe there were two or more Harwoods involved?? Nurg (talk) 08:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "Maybe there were two or more Harwoods involved" Nope. And either way, had that been the case then it should be "Harwoods' Hole" to be grammatically correct.  Schwede 66  09:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a bit odd. The NZGB would surely have thought about it before making it official, so I wonder what their thinking was. Regardless, I support the proposed move. Nurg (talk) 10:24, 2 December 2019 (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.