Talk:Goodwood Heights

St Johns Redoubt

@Prosperosity we should rely on what RS state, and not one RS connects the redoubt with Goodwood Heights. These sources identify it with Manukau for example: [1], [2] Traumnovelle (talk) 05:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Paora I have provided sources here. Please provide a source that puts it in Goodwood Heights. Traumnovelle (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Traumnovelle: The first source that you cite, from 2006, uses "Manukau" in headings and titles as shorthand for "Manukau City". The latter is used in the main body of the report for the address in Redoubt Road. Similarly in the DOC report for the redoubt mentioned elsewhere. The second source cited above is an ambiguous photo caption, "View from St John Redoubt, Manukau, 2013", once again shorthand that is open to interpretation. The first sentence of the full description of the photo is "View of Manukau City Centre from the site of St John Redoubt, November 2013." I interpret the title that you are relying upon as meaning the view is of Manukau from St John Redoubt, rather than placing St John Redoubt in Manukau (Central). Please provide an unambiguous reliable source that puts the redoubt in Manukau (Central), not just in the wider former Manukau City. Inspection of any map clearly shows that Redoubt Road to the east of the Southern Motorway is in Goodwood Heights [3]. Paora (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The source states 'CFG Heritage Ltd commissioned Geometria Ltd to undertake a geophysical survey on the property directly adjacent to St. John's Redoubt Historic Reserve in Manukau' and the other source quite clearly states 'St John Redoubt, Manukau' if it meant 'views of Manukau from St Johns Redoubt' it would have just stated that. Reliable sources clearly state it as being part of Manukau and not a single RS even mentions 'Goodwood Heights'. Google Maps is not an RS and relying on it is in this context is OR. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Surprisingly not - WP:GOOGLEMAPS is considered "useful for some purposes", and as per the reasoning in the WP:NOTOR essay, sources do exist showing the redoubt reserve as within Goodwood Heights, or contextual sources such as this LDS news blog which describes the redoubt as being adjacent to the Goodwood Heights temple complex.

There are absolutely maps that describe the area the redoubt is located in as being Goodwood Heights, such as Manukau District Plan maps and street database and the NZ Post Address Finder, which as per the reasoning in the WP:MAPCITE essay makes this not original research.

I feel that the more important consideration here is what information is useful for people wanting to use these suburb articles. I agree with you about the redoubt's inclusion in the Manukau Central and the Great South Road articles - it's very helpful in understanding what features were important in the areas before they became suburbanised. I also feel that it's very useful for someone wanting to learn more about the Goodwood Heights area, and many available sources indicate that 36°59'32.8"S 174°53'28.2"E is within the area called Goodwood Heights. Prosperosity (talk) 20:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

where other reliable sources are available they should be preferred over Google Maps and Google Street View. LINZ and AC maps are available and do not support the information, these two sources obviously trump Google Maps.

The link you provided from the Manukau City Council states St Johns Redoubt 9, 19, 23 and 25 Redoubt Road,

Manurewa which clearly does not identify it as being part of Goodwood Heights. Mapcite is an essay and means nothing.

The most important consideration is Wikipedia policies, material that has been challenged requires an insource citation, there is no citation to a reliable source that puts the Redoubt as being in Goodwood Heights and no such RS has been shown to exist. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but within the documents that describes the features of the Goodwood Heights area.

WP:MAPCITE is an essay, not policy. Essays do mean things - they elaborate and explore the reasoning behind why policy is as it is. That doesn't mean that they mean nothing. The essay argues that it is not OR to extact information from a map for its intended use, and there are maps that state that 25 Redoubt Road is considered Goodwood Heights (e.g. Google Maps, NZ Post) - this reasoning seems fair, can you explain why it would not apply, or why it would be detrimental to the article to include this? Prosperosity (talk) 23:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

What? The relevant document that includes the area makes no mention of Goodwood Heights and locates the redoubt elsewhere.

Google Maps is not an RS and has multiple mistakes with boundaries, roads etc.. NZ post boundaries are not legally defining and are often quite weird. My postal address is different to the actual area I am in for example.

Here is a document from LINZ on addresses: https://www.linz.govt.nz/sites/default/files/useful_info_for_working_with_addresses.pdf Relevant passage: 'Some components [of a postal address] are not officially approved of, but are included because they are in-use and may be encountered in day to day use' and from Auckland Council Note that New Zealand Post does not define suburb names or boundaries.. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The title of the document on the Manukau District Plan page, which indicates the suburbs that the streets are located in.

We've already discussed Google Maps and how it can in some situations be considered an RS.

Yes? We're not discussing what sources are the most official, we're discussing if sources exist that describe the area as Goodwood Heights, which they do, meaning it is not OR. Prosperosity (talk) 00:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Found another one, the LINZ Data Service when searching for specific addresses gives the reserve as "St Johns Redoubt Historic Reserve, Goodwood Heights, AU, New Zealand" Prosperosity (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

This is the database that FENZ uses. It is used for their purposes only. It includes features that are obviously not localities such as hospitals and lakes, as these are obviously of importance to FENZ. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

So it's a map used by an authoritative body? Prosperosity (talk) 00:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

FENZ are authoritative on boundaries? You have no actual RS that discusses it in relation to Goodwood Heights. You can connect the address (some what dubiously) but that is still synth. If this was relevant to Goodwood Heights there would almost certainly be a source that identifies it in the context. Addresses aren't all that important either, Howick Colonial Village is not within Howick, but it is mentioned at Howick, New Zealand because it is obviously related to Howick. Same goes for many schools which have been built outside of boundaries of the zone they serve for whatever reason. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

They don't need to be an authority on boundaries. You felt it was important to remove because you considered it WP:OR; describing the reserve as being in Goodwood Heights is demonstrably not original research. There are also sources that describe the reserve as being in Manukau Central, I feel it's very fair to include information about the redoubt in the Manukau Central page. Prosperosity (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

A database is not an appropriate source here when none of the secondary sources make mention of Goodwood Heights. We include content based on what secondary sources write. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)