Talk:Wētā

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wētā article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 6 months

Wētā was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 25, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed

New Zealand High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Insects Mid‑importance

	Insects portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects 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.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wētā was the New Zealand collaboration from 7 May, to 21 May 2006. For details on how the article improved, see the NZC history

This article is written in New Zealand English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, analyse, centre, fiord) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Endemic?[edit]

according to this site, wetas are also found in australia, south africa, and south america. http://weta.boarsnest.net/

etymology[edit]

What is the origin of the word "weta"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.252.183.253 (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wētā and weta[edit]

Macrons were recently added for wētā, then removed, then added again. Some have definitely been added incorrectly: for example when quoting the title of an article printed in 1956. I'll correct those and leave the rest. Before we embark on an edit war, people should familiarise themselves with the extensive discussion on NZ Wikipedians' Noticeboard. The NZ naming conventions state that Māori words are to be used with macrons where appropriate. Using macrons with Māori has been standard usage since about 2015 in New Zealand English authoritative sources such as newspapers, TV, magazines (see the references in Media outlets using macrons) and government (see Te Ara, Landcare, and DOC), any mass-removal of macrons will be treated as disruptive unless evidence is provided that the spelling with macrons is not in fact in common use, as per WP:COMMONNAME and especially WP:NAMECHANGES. Citations of official authoritative sources demonstrating usage would be preferred to unrestricted Google results. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was reluctant to step into this, because I didn't want to resurrect the interminable "Paekakariki" discussion, and because I don't think that adding gratuitous macrons to names of insects is quite as egregious as adding them to names of towns/cities. (After all, unlike towns/cities, hundreds or thousands of people don't live in insects, nor create businesses that use the insect's name (except for Sir Peter Jackson), nor do people ever likely have years or decades of personal connection with the name of an insect.) But I have to correct you on one point here where you're definitely wrong: Where the 'burden of proof lies’.

You see, for more than 15 years (from the page's creation in Dec 2002, up until July 2018) the page said "weta”, and more recently the Maori-language origin of the word (and the (current :-) Maori-language spelling "wētā" was also noted). The page began:

"Weta is the common name for a group of about 70 insect species [...] endemic to New Zealand. The word is from the Māori wētā", where singular and plural have the same form"

Until July 2018, everybody seemed content with this; it seems to be an accurate description of how the word is used in everyday NZ English. Up until July, nobody tried adding macrons, nor was there even any discussion of it at all on this talk page. So, if anything, the 'disruptive' editing was the two sudden, undiscussed mass additions of macrons in July. And so, you have the burden of proof backwards. The people who want to keep the spelling the way it was don't have to prove anything; it's up to the Macronistas to prove their case. And I’m not convinced that you’ve really done this.

Yes, the DOC all seem to have drunk the 'Macron Kool-Aid’, as has Te Ara (whose goal seems to be to create a single blended English+Maori-language encyclopedia, rather than Wikipedia’s goal of having separate encyclopedias for each language). But most of the scientific papers that are cited in the article (including some quite recent ones) use “weta”. And your case would certainly be stronger if you could persuade the scientists at Massey University to update their “Weta Geta” website (cited three times in the article) to write “weta” with macrons.

Also, you probably should have referred to WP:FAUNA, which says: "The article title should usually consist of the name that is most common in English, following WP:COMMONNAME”. But this actually sort of lets you off the hook here, because it refers to the article’s title, rather than the spelling of the name within the article’s body. In any case, though, you certainly shouldn’t consider changing the title of this page without further discussion on this talk page. Ross Finlayson (talk) 10:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty clear that the common name in New Zealand English is Wētā. See for example https://collections.tepapa.govt.nz/topic/2499 (National Museum), https://www.doc.govt.nz/nature/native-animals/invertebrates/weta/ (Department of Conservation), https://www.aucklandzoo.co.nz/animals/weta-punga (largest zoo) and https://teara.govt.nz/en/weta (National encyclopedia). Older sources and those without the technical ability still fail to use macrons, but those numbers are falling. I intend t rename this article shortly unless there is an objection. Ping User:Rsfinlayson and User:Giantflightlessbirds. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Things have certainly moved on in the last couple of years, with the acceptance of macrons in NZ article titles and some other renamings of NZ species. Even WētāGeta has macrons now.—Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go through a formal move request as that will probably confirm your (and my) impression, but also prevent reverts and ongoing bickering. Schwede 66 02:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 July 2020[edit]

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: Consensus to move page. (non-admin closure) — YoungForever^(talk) 04:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weta → Wētā – Wētā is the correct spelling for this in New Zealand English, as per all the significant national institutions (https://collections.tepapa.govt.nz/topic/2499 (National Museum), https://www.doc.govt.nz/nature/native-animals/invertebrates/weta/ (Department of Conservation), https://www.aucklandzoo.co.nz/animals/weta-punga (largest zoo), https://teara.govt.nz/en/weta (National encyclopedia), and etc.) and the page needs to be moved to that per NZ naming conventions. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. 180.242.9.176 (talk) 04:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support: see discussion above. Anyone new to the discussion of macron use in NZ English should probably read the Naming conventions (New Zealand) discussion from earlier this year to get up to speed. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 06:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above discussion.-gadfium 06:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above discussion.- In ictu oculi (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above reasoning.Moriori (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2020 (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.

Reason for revert[edit]

I removed from the lede the mention of the so-called "Australian winged weta", an undescribed Australian species of ‘’Pterapotrechus’’ established in NZ. It is not mentioned in the body text and as yet there is no article about it. Also, inserting the addition of the Aussie flyer in a passage saying our wētā are all flightless, has dubious relevance and is confusing. When an article is created about this insect it will doubtless justify inclusion, but in its own referencd paragraph.Moriori (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"wētā" not entirely endemic to New Zealand, just mostly endemic[edit]

The animals go by different names in different places. Such as "king crickets" in Australia and South Africa. The name wētā is unique to New Zealand though. Maybe a biology specialist will chime in more broadly on the aspect of Orders/ Families/ Species.

Sources:

https://www.qm.qld.gov.au/Explore/Find+out+about/Animals+of+Queensland/Insects/Grasshoppers+Crickets+and+Katydids/Common+species/Giant+King+Cricket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anostostomatidae 97.122.180.75 (talk) 03:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The wētā species talked about in the article are all found only in New Zealand and its offshore islands; none occur in in Australia or anywhere else (there are unpublished specimen labels that claim some were collected in Australia, but they've never been seen there since, and I think those records are mistakes, and in any case unusable as reliable sources in Wikipedia). The subfamily Deinacridinae is only found in NZ, consisting of Deinacrida (giant wētā) and Hemideina (tree wētā). Some species closely related to wētā occur elsewhere but they're not called wētā. So it's accurate to say wētā are endemic to NZ. See the Gibbs Te Ara reference: "Although these wētā species are found only in New Zealand, there are wētā-like insects in Australia, South Africa, South America, Europe, Asia and North America. Outside New Zealand, similar heavy-bodied, burrowing insects are known as king crickets. Light-weight jumping varieties are known as cave crickets or camel crickets." —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]