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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers 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.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver
This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 7 September 2025. The result of the move review was Decision endorsed.
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 reviewafter discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As you seem to have mentioned, Hakareteke Stream is the unofficial name given to it by the New Zealand Geographic Board and Land Information New Zealand, in this instance unofficial would mean it hasn't been formally approved by the NZGB, however it is still what's used in government sources, Topo maps, etc. From what I can find, sources refer to it as both, and in my opinion a redirect as is currently the case does just fine. Mrastron (talk) 00:43, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources refer to both and in recent academic papers Hakereteke stream is used. As there is a film "Kerosene Creek" (which will disturb Ngram and Trends data) we could just get into further redirect issues with this proposal. Leave. ChaseKiwi (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An unofficial name just means it has been recorded on survey maps.
Support Kerosene Creek appears to be more common in both academia and common usage. Also Kerosene Creek was the original title so a no consensus close should restore the original title. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RECENTISM also the watercourse is only named Hakereteke Stream on on NZTopo50-BF37 Edition 1.03, 2020. That map also names a foot track "Kerosene Creek MTB Track" (throughout the map cycle tracks are classed as foot tracks and not vehicle tracks) which is enough justification for the redirect to continue to exist but certainly not for changing the name of the article about the watercourse. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:45, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should not be concerned by the common name as of today as determined in the debate of sudden changes of name popularity as occurred with Gulf of America. While the Kerosene Creek name has been used by English settlers and rolls of NZ English tongues, the long mapping history of Hakereteke Stream means my view we should Keep remains unchanged. ChaseKiwi (talk) 13:37, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the reference to the flood is likely to the lower reaches of the Hakereteke stream, below its confluence with the outlet of Lake Ngahewa even if the Maori name given in the article is no longer used. The Kerosene Creek name was long used used by European settlers in area for a portion of the Hakereteke stream to east of present state highway 5, not apparently its whole length. It appears to be the only water course in locality whose popular name is "English". There was a claim to significant discovery in 1889 Discovery of Petroleum. Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XVI, Issue 5444, 6 April 1889, Page 3 without Kerosene Creek name. As a geographic feature the upper reaches of the Hakereteke stream have no petroleum seeps. If the article was renamed it would seem to be necessary to clarify that Kerosene Creek is the common name given to a portion of the Hakereteke stream. There is no justification here to create separate articles like the case Pool of London in case of River Thames. Common names can be inaccurate and misleading so I continue to oppose the name change. ChaseKiwi (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying that Kerosene Creek only refers to the lower portion? I don't see any sources making that claim and this one explicitly refers to Kerosene Creek as the common name of Hakerereteke Stream[3]Traumnovelle (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the common use appears to be the lower portion, eg the water hole and track. All maps I have ever sighted have the Kerosene Creek label east of State Highway 5. Many of the tourist maps do not even show a stream to the west of SH5. The several times I visited, well before I contributed to the article, I was pointed towards the lower portion, and the upper portion of the stream west of SH5 is not easily accessible to the public. I have checked what paper maps I have available from the 1970s and 80s and none apart from the ordinance survey which uses Hakereteke stream label upstream is helpful. As said elsewhere now, the main water flow is surveyed and the name Hakereteke stream is as accurate as we have for the waterway and avoids confusion. There is another Kerosene Creek in Manitoba, Canada at N 51° 6′ 23″, W 99° 44′ 8″ which is about the same length as Hakereteke stream, which for all I know explains why there was a Canadian Rock band with the name Kerosene Creek. ChaseKiwi (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, WP:COMMONNAME. Compare compression ignition engine with diesel engine, which are the same thing. One of these names has existed longer than the other, but the other one is a lot more common, and therefore makes the cut. Similar to this, Hakereteke is a very obscure name that not many people know; your average Kiwi or Rotoruan is more likely going to recognise Kerosene Creek over Hakereteke stream. Also, topography maps are written by surveyors, not the common people—it's WP:COMMONNAME, not WP:SURVEYORSNAME. from Piperium (chit-chat, i did that) at 12:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 7 September 2025. The result of the move review was Decision endorsed.