Talk:Te Whatu Ora

Requested move 1 February 2023

 * 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 discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved to Te Whatu Ora. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 09:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Health New Zealand → Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand – per its name, logotype and common usage. When this article was created, the nationwide replacement of District Health Boards (DHBs) was referred to as Health New Zealand or Health NZ, as the organisation had no official name. (See Dept. Of Prime Minister and Cabinet explanation). At launch, the agency was given the name Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand. The organisation refers to itself as Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand, it is referred to as Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand on the Ministry of Health's website, and news organisations refer to it in recent stories as Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand (and sometimes simply "Te Whatu Ora"); for example in the ODT, Stuff National, RNZ, the NZ Herald's Rotorua Daily Post and Bay of Plenty Times and soon after launch by TVNZ Quilt Phase (talk) 05:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC) “interim Health New Zealand” refers to the organisation before it became officially established as a result of Pae Ora, so those references will be historic, referring to status quo prior to 1 July 2022. Quilt Phase (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Even official sources seem to be uncertain whether the name is Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand, Health New Zealand, Te Whatu Ora-Health New Zealand or Te Whatu Ora (Health New Zealand). There are even some apparently recent official things in google calling it interim Health New Zealand (that may be due to issues with timestamps, not sure). Probably best to wait until things settle down and become clearer. There's no reason why all those shouldn't be redirects, of course. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd also add simply Te Whatu Ora to that list - but formatting aside, that probably seems like more of an argument to have it at the full name as an interim thing until things settle down. Turnagra (talk) 09:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Te Papa is a good example of a national-level institution which is almost never called by it's official name, and which has a butt-load of redirects. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I'd have probably just moved this, along with the Māori Health Authority, as the moves should be fairly uncontroversial. As you've pointed out, they've very rarely (if ever) been referred to by just "Health New Zealand" since being established, in a similar manner to Whaikaha being referred to as the Ministry for Disabled People before it was established. Turnagra (talk) 05:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose, but tentative support for Te Whatu Ora. These are two distinct names, used for a bilingual country, but many seem to be treating “Te Whatu Ora” as the name. (See the Daily Post, for example, who don’t even mention Health New Zealand.) There seems to be some use of “Health New Zealand” as a subtitle or explanation of what Te Whatu Ora, rather than as a name per se. I would similarly oppose the bilingual name for the Māori Health Authority, and would probably support a move to Te Aka Whai Ora, although weirdly a lot of commentary seems to favour “Māori Health Authority” in discussing it, but still referring to the entity as “Te Aka Whai Ora” as though that’s its name. (This is certainly the case for the ASMS: The establishment of Te Aka Whai Ora, the Māori Health Authority…; and they mostly use Te Aka Whai Ora as the name, only really talking about “a” Māori Health Authority elsewhere in their opinion. I get the sense people use Te Papa and “Museum of New Zealand” similarly, but that’s elsewise entirely…) — HTGS (talk) 07:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Also it is always a bit hard to say about actual usage of dual names in text, and what the speaker/writer intends by them, but I really don’t think the logotype we have (File:Health New Zealand logo.svg) supports one whole name, rather than two distinct names. — HTGS (talk) 07:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I would also Support a move to Te Whatu Ora Quilt Phase (talk) 05:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Te Whatu Ora. Moving to Te Whatu Ora reduces article recognizability considerably. The major health provider for New Zealand should be using the English name. --Spekkios (talk) 07:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as proposed, move is to the name used by the organisation and the name most easily recognised by both New Zealanders and international readers.- gadfium 08:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I can tell you as an international reader that I recognize the English name much more easily than the Maori, even if you put the English name at the end. --Killuminator (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Move to Health New Zealand
Under the new government, public service departments are required “have their primary name in English, except for those specifically related to Māori”. This includes Health New Zealand. 2407:7000:A281:AB00:B888:4925:87A2:6BE2 (talk) 08:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * We don't follow the direction of the government, we follow what common usage of the name is. And that is still clearly Te Whatu Ora. Turnagra (talk) 09:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We need to wait until this department actually changes its name.PatricKiwi (talk) 12:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Within the next 90 days, we should see the primary name change to Health New Zealand. Whether the PIJF will still hold the NZ media to refer to the Māori name, and therefore break WP:NAMECHANGES is unknown to me at this point, but knowing that the majority of the New Zealand media lean left, they will most likely still call it Te Whatu Ora. It will be a contentious move. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 09:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how the PIJF would be related in any way to how the media refer to Te Whatu Ora. Could you please elaborate your view? Turnagra (talk) 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Turnagra is correct, although I'm surprised to hear them expressing support for using the WP:COMMONNAME over the WP:OFFICIALNAME; if media continues to call this Te Whatu Ora then we need to do the same. BilledMammal (talk) 09:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If the name Health New Zealand is suddenly used on topo maps and appears in the NZGB gazetteer then let's talk. Turnagra (talk) 09:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "Use the common name, unless the official name is used in these specific official sources"? That's a bizarre stance, and quite a double standard. BilledMammal (talk) 09:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:JOKE Turnagra (talk) 09:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @BilledMammal I don't know who you're referring to as "them" and it's probably not the best choice of words in a discussion like this one. This should be an inclusive dialogue and not a point-a-finger point of view. But if you are talking to me, can you please rephrase your question, I'm a bit confused. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 11:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, a little interrupted there. @Turnagra I can answer your question. The PIJF fund, which news organisations like NZME (NZ Hearld), RNZ, Stuff Media, TVNZ (1News), Newsroom and The Spinoff all took required them to a commitment to te reo Māori per this PIJF Q&A pdf. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 09:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * All good - it might be because it's late, but I'm not seeing what you're referring to. I can see in there about the PIJF's commitment to Māori and how they would like to fund projects that increase coverage of Māori and Pasifika in the media, but I'm not seeing anything about requiring all projects to commit to the use of te reo. Could you point me to the section? Turnagra (talk) 09:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is a source from Stuff talking about it, funny enough. You have just answered your question in your question. They take the fund, they oblige by the fund, which you can find in my previous comments. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 09:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * “We are also directed by the Broadcasting Act to ‘reflect and develop New Zealand identity and culture’ and specifically to promote ‘Māori language and Māori culture, and to consult with ‘representatives of Māori interests.’ https://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/~kab/dd/PIJF17July23.pdf Kiwiz1338 (talk) 09:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That stuff article doesn't seem to be saying what you think it does, rather it seems to be dispelling the very claims you seem to be making. As for the pdf, well - forgive me, but vaguely conspiratorial ramblings from an uncited and unattributed pdf on the computer science portion of Waikato Uni hardly seems convincing. Turnagra (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's fine. We can agree to disagree, I don't mind that. There is a commitment to using the language and holding the views stated in the PIJF pdf. This was just me answering your question. Conspiratorial? I would have to disagree. At the end of the day this is my opionion, you may have another. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 05:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If the common name changes then we change the article name. Not before. --Spekkios (talk) 08:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 09:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * how do we define the common name when society becomes controversially split between the left and right wing media? Are we to define Wikipedia as a left or right wing platform? No, I propose in the spirit of neutrality we should follow the official stance in this specific instance 2407:7000:A281:AB00:FD50:6E50:F489:F7D1 (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We define common name by looking at the name that is used by sources. --Spekkios (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I reject the idea that New Zealand’s media landscape has such a left–right divide that it would make this difficult to evaluate. — HTGS (talk) 03:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I second this. --Spekkios (talk) 01:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 9 March 2024

 * 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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. For now. Responses suggest that Health New Zealand may be the appropriate title at a future date. (closed by non-admin page mover) asilvering (talk) 05:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Te Whatu Ora → Health New Zealand – Per WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, WP:NATURALNESS and WP:COMMONNAME:
 * 1) COMMONNAME - while the article was moved a year ago following a temporary shift due to government policies, those policies have now been reversed and a review of recent sources shows a slight preference for the proposed title, in line with the long term COMMONNAME
 * 2) RECOGNIZABILITY - the proposed title is far more recognizable to the general audience, to the extent that a significant part of the reason that government policies were reversed was because of recognizability issues.
 * 3) NATURALNESS - the title that readers are most likely to search for, and the title that editors are most likely to use, is overwhelmingly the proposed title. BilledMammal (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose. All of the reasons cited by the nomination are flawed. Looking at them in turn:
 * Common name - Looking at the preferences of the sources identified in the request, we see 10 for "Health New Zealand", 17 for "Health NZ", 26 for "Te Whatu Ora", 3 with some form of dual name and 6 with split usage. Even combining "Health New Zealand" and "Health NZ", under no interpretation of WP:COMMONNAME would that be enough to categorically state that the proposed title is the common name. I'd also note that the quality of some sources leaves a lot to be desired - for example, this one is simply a transcript of the Minister of Health's speech, this one as far as I can tell makes no reference to the agency in question at all by any name, and I'm somewhat dubious about the reliability of mirage news given their weirdly low profile outside of their website (but I acknowledge that I'd need to do more digging on that to be sure - perhaps you'd be interested in looking into it too as an aside, given your interest in the reliability of sources?). I also note that you mention a change in government priorities here as part of the grounds for the move, despite making it clear on several occasions (including further up) that such priorities do not factor into our naming conventions. Finally, you've mentioned the supposed "long-term common name". This is bizarre given that, as stated in the article, the concept of Te Whatu Ora as an agency wasn't even announced until 2021, a time period not covered by the ngram search. I'm sure that if you actually examined the sources picked up in the ngram search, they would be entirely unrelated to the agency, and so aren't really the best thing to determine its common name.
 * Recognisability - We don't give organisations descriptive titles simply so that what they are can be deduced from the title. Te Puni Kōkiri isn't at Ministry of Māori Development, nor is Spark New Zealand at New Zealand Telecommunications Provider. WP:RECOGNISABILITY states that titles should be something that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize - anyone familiar with New Zealand's health system or its public service will unquestionably recognise Te Whatu Ora as a name. I also note that you've cited the government priorities again, which are again irrelevant and prompts similar concerns to those which have been expressed in other moves about removing article titles derived from Māori.
 * Naturalness - your search data is flawed. Looking at the longer term trend for the same searches, we see that both Health New Zealand and Health NZ have always been at that higher level of coverage, with a couple of big spikes around covid presumably due to our response which got widespread acclaim globally. These are both generic terms, and shouldn't be interpreted as all being searches for the agency. In contrast, you can see a clear increase in searches for Te Whatu Ora around the time that the agency was established, which is not matched by a corresponding increase for either of the other names above their historical baseline. This would suggest that the establishment of the agency did not lead to more people searching for Health New Zealand - it did, however, lead to more people searching for Te Whatu Ora.
 * Looking at the other WP:CRITERIA then, and Te Whatu Ora is far more WP:CONCISE as a name than Health New Zealand (Health NZ is more concise than both, but we shouldn't be using abbreviations like that in titles unless it's unquestionably the common name). An argument for WP:CONSISTENCY could also be made with its former sister agency of Te Aka Whai Ora, but I think that's less relevant here.
 * All in all, though, I fail to see any compelling grounds to justify moving this, and rather just see it in the latest of a long string of similar move requests with an ideological tint to them. Turnagra (talk) 03:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose move for reasons listed above. 222.152.26.228 (talk) 04:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Neutral The move over to Health New Zealand has only really just started, so I think we need to wait a bit longer for sources to move over to the new name. It's only a matter of when, not if. The agency itself seems to already be branded as Health New Zealand per its website, logo, and Facebook accounts. URL not so much but they'll get there. I lean support but at this moment in time, there aren't sufficient sources, in the top example anyway. But any Google trend or ngram will show you it's clearly the common name. When it catches up I'm in full support. Also, seeing as the name managed to get to this stage, with it excluding the bilingual English name to just Te Whatu Ora, I see no argument as to why it will be no different with it being the solo English name Health New Zealand. Thank you. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose Just the latest instalment of the Wikipedia culture wars brought to us by a certain editor. has set out very well how flawed this utterly nomination is. The source survey from the nom is hopeless. It contains unreliable sources and sources not even mentioning this organisation! Even on the nom's own misleading and dubious source analysis their preferred name only has a "slight" lead over the existing title. AusLondonder (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What's this about a Wikipedia culture war? --Spekkios (talk) 03:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)