Talk:Upper Hutt

Upper Hutt Coat-of-Arms and Flag

I think that it would be good to include the Upper Hutt Coat-of-Arms and Flag in at least the basic info box, similar to what has been done on the Wellington page.

There are images available online for the both the Coat of Arms and flag at e.g. Heraldry wiki, Flags of the World and the Upper Hutt City Council website, but I don't have the copyright or permission to upload them.

Cheers--Radicuil (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I have just added an image of the coat of arms --Radicuil (talk) 10:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

motto

@Radicuil the motto is "Nihil altius pulchriusve" not "Nihil altius pulchriusue, according to this at least TheLoyalOrder (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Now, I won't claim to know Latin, but my understanding is that in Latin "u" and "v" are just different forms of the same letter, and so "pulchriusve" & "pulchriusue" are the same word. Per Latin phonology and orthography#Spelling, "Usually, a non-vocalic ⟨v⟩ after ⟨q⟩, ⟨g⟩ or ⟨s⟩ is still printed as ⟨u⟩ rather than ⟨v⟩, likely because these did not change from /w/ to /v/ post-classically." I don't know enough about Latin or linguistics to know whether the u/v in this case is vocalic or non-vocalic.

I was unable, in just a quick search, to find either "pulchriusve" or "pulchriusue" in an online Latin to English dictionary. However, Google translate works with both, and I found some online Latin texts which use "pulchriusve" () and "pulchriusue" (, ).

So ultimately, I don't think it matters which is used. They are both the same word, and whether you use a "v" or a "u" seems to be merely a stylistic choice.-Radicuil (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Appears to be a Mediaeval Latin form of pulchrior. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion 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.

---

I propose merging Upper Hutt City Council into Upper Hutt. All sources in the Upper Hutt City Council are primary or not about the council, so the council does not make notability. Upper Hutt discusses the council, so the additional information could be merged there. Mariamnei (talk) 09:15, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

oppose, I think its more a case of "nobodies bothered to expand it" rather than "there arent any sources to expand with". I think all the territorial authorities should have seperate articles from the districts they are the authority for TheLoyalOrder (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Nah. City councils are notable. This needs to be expanded and secondary sources need to be added. A merge is inappropriate. Schwede66 05:50, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose - I agree with the above comments from TheLoyalOrder and Schwede66 that the council is notable and warrants a separate article (I suppose I would say that, given that I was the one that changed it from a redirect to an article). I have since added further secondary citations to the Upper Hutt City Council page, but as I noted in my reply to you on the talk page there I don't think your assertion that none of the already cited secondary sources mentioned the council was accurate in the first place.-Radicuil (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. All city and district councils in New Zealand are notable. The article is relatively new and needs to be expanded. JaumeBG (talk) 07:23, 17 March 2026 (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.