Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Southland

Southland_Regional_Council respectively Southland Region don't match up. Various references - see especially that given in the council re what is said in the council box or compared to the pop numbers given without ref in the region article - cannot agree on population or even size of the Southland Region. Is the Southland Regional Council NOT responsibel for the whoole area of Southland? Ingolfson (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The Southland Regional Council is only responsible for those parts of Southland that are not included in the Invercargill City Council and Gore District Council areas. So, to derive the population or area of Southland as a whole, it's SRC+ICC+GDC=Southland district/region/province. I would use 2006 Census figures, and if the SRC itself wishes to include other information then it should be referenced as its commentary only. I would be happy to add this to my to do list - I am a new user and need to learn about editing though. If anyone wishes to contact me directly with some pointers then this will speed things along. I am also working on improving the Mataura River and Featherston pages. --Januarian (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is the Southland District Council which is only responsible for those parts of Southland that are not included in Invercargill City and Gore District. The Southland Region and its Regional Council (also known under its brand name Environment Southland) covers the whole of Southland, including Invercargill and Gore. I live in Invercargill City and have just in the last couple of weeks received my Environment Southland rates demand. I don't have exact population figures to hand, but rough ballpark figures would be: Invercargill City, 55,000: Southland District: 30,000; Gore District: 15,000; Southland Region: 100,000. Daveosaurus (talk) 11:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Condition of the Denniston, New Zealand article

Hi folks,

I just thought I would bring to the attention of a wider audience the current state of the page about Denniston, New Zealand. An anonymous editor has recently added a lot of prose to this article. I'm sure some of the information is encyclopaedic, but it is not presented in an encyclopaedic manner, lacks sources, and requires serious wikifying. I can at least confirm that the information on the Denniston Incline and other railway details appears sound for the most part, though some details are new to me.

I just don't have the time and energy to clean all of this up, so I figured here would be the best place to find some other editors who may have the interest, time, and energy to do something about it. Since Denniston has got to be one of the most historically fascinating sites on the West Coast, I think it really deserves a well-written, detailed, referenced entry. - Axver (talk) 08:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I would suspect a copyvio in the RAOB section: it includes the line "The Author of this work has not been able to locate much on the history of this lodge and what has been compiled is from a range of information sources." which is a pretty good sign of cut'n'paste contributions. dramatic (talk) 09:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio is possible, but the material doesn't seem to be online. It's also quite possible that this is the anon's own work, and they are including a few notes on the material as they present it. I'll drop a note on their talk page asking about sources. They also added similar material to Newmarket, New Zealand, which I did some cleanup of, and Millerton, New Zealand, which needs some attention.-gadfium 09:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) I can't see any obvious website plagiarism either, though that section has the air of being from an older published text about it. It definitely looks like it needs some sort of prune (as long as information about the infamous Denniston Incline remains). Fascinating place, BTW... a real ghost town - you sort of disappear into the mists on the way to it. Grutness...wha? 09:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Icelandic New Zealanders

I thought I'd provide a brief respite from the more serious topics discussed here, to post that I have just added our very first (I believe) New Zealander of Icelandic descent. Someone who seems to be quite famous in Iceland, but virtually unknown here. BigBadaboom0 (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

There is an image of her on her Italian wikipedia article. I know how to do it with [ [ Image ] ], but can't work out if its possible to do so inside an Infobox template. I could not find any instruction on how to make that work anywhere on WP. Is it possible or am I forced to re-upload it to the English version? BigBadaboom0 (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The image needed to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons so it can be available on all Wikipedia projects. I have done this now Image:Hera concerto.jpg Kāhuroa (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Kahuroa! BigBadaboom0 (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, there is a former professor of economics at Otago University (Peter Henderson - Scottish/Icelandic, IIRC) who would be another entry to that potential category. He'd proably be of borderline notability, though. Grutness...wha? 07:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Pākehā vs xenophobia

I've started a discussion on the appropriateness of Pākehā being included in List of xenophobic terms at Talk:List of Xenophobic terms. dramatic (talk) 03:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Te Ara - Encyclopedia of New Zealand

I have been approached by a staff member of Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand. As you know, us Kiwi Wikipedians use Te Ara as a source and as supporting information - I know that I have used Te Ara and linked to them quite a lot, and personally I think Te Ara makes life a lot easier when it comes to providing sources for articles about New Zealand people, places, plants, animals, etc.

The approach to me was via Te Ara's flickr site when I asked them to release an image to Wikimedia Commons. The staff member told me that they had agreed to release the image and then mentioned that they have noticed that when a Wikipedia article links to a Te Ara article, they get a lot of hits. The staff member has been thinking about creating a user account and making links from various Wikipedia articles to the appropriate Te Ara article (as an external link). They want to be transparent and open about this, and asked me to raise the matter here for discussion and guidance, and they want to make a few edits at first and get feedback, rather than just charging in.

My personal opinion is that this is all good - Te Ara is a great source for us to use to improve and verify our articles - all of their articles are written by experts in the field. And there are precedents - apparently nzhistory.net.nz has been doing something similar and has been upfront about it and been accepted here. And I am aware of a recent New Zealand GA where many of the edits appear to be from people employed in a particular field.

I think it's an interesting development and one we should be accepting of. I know that they would like any issues discussed. Kāhuroa (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea. Where there is a Te Ara article on the same subject as a Wikipedia article, we will directly benefit from having an external link to their article added to the end of our article, because it provides a reliable reference for the general information contained in the article. Where there is a Te Ara article which covers the same area as several articles on Wikipedia, adding it as an external link is less appropriate, but it would be a useful inline reference for specific facts. For example, [1] would be a useful external link for Aupouri Peninsula, but in an article such as Ninety Mile Beach, it would be better to add the Māori name of the beach with that Te Ara article as an inline reference, and also to use it for the actual length of the beach (although our length currently differs from theirs).

They should be encouraged to also add links to their Māori language articles to the Maori Wikipedia.-gadfium 20:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking like no one has any major concerns with this proposal. I support Gadfium's suggestion about the Māori Wikipedia too.Kāhuroa (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way the user in question is User:Tearanz. Cheers Kahuroa (talk) 07:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That's great. Another little nail in the coffin of the claim that Wikipedia is bad for the "serious" reference publications. Ingolfson (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

History of rugby union matches between All Blacks and France at FAC

I have nominated History of rugby union matches between All Blacks and France for Featured Article status and would appreciated any comments. You can comment on the article here. Thanks. - Shudde ^talk 08:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Opinions needed

There's been a long-running edit war at Solicitor-General of New Zealand between an editor who appears to be active only on this article and a couple of closely related ones, and an anon. I got involved a couple of days ago. I'd welcome further opinions.-gadfium 20:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I would concur with your assessment on the page. I would like to know if the editor who is including the biased material has any connection to the websites (publicwatchdogs and kiwisfirst) he has been citing as it does seem somewaht suspicious! DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the two sites are not reliable - in fact they're pretty dodgy and potentially dangerous. Definitely not the sort of source we want any truck with. Kahuroa (talk) 11:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I have also looked at and somewhat NPOV'd the Judith Potter article that he had edited in an unfavourable way. As Potter was involved in the Siemer case, it was clearly not a neutral edit. Ingolfson (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The 60s don't exist

This --> Distanced from overseas cultural centers, the New Zealand rock scene began in earnest during the 1960s, when the British Invasion reached the country's musicians. A number of garage bands were formed, all with a high-energy performing style. Though few became internationally (or even nationally) famous, they stirred into life a number of fertile local scenes, full of musicians and fans. Much of their material has been collected by John Baker for his Wild Things collections." is all there is about the 1960s' at Music of New Zealand. Anyone interested? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 04:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hell - there isn't even an article on Johnny Devlin! I don't know enough about that era myself (I do work on 80s NZ music articles, though) - there are a few people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian music who might be able to add something (I know User: Shaidar cuebiyar has done good work on articles like Max Merritt). I'm, sure there are several NZ Wikipedians who have edited articles on 60s and 70s NZ music (user:Mombas is one such I can think of, User:Mozasaur is another). Perhaps it's time to resuscitate the "collaboration of the fortnight" idea for articles like this? Grutness...wha? 06:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys, the core issue is lack of web based references to sustain the articles against attack from well meaning wikipedians, of those era's. So I have lost a few articles that were true, but lightly referenced. My idea was that the referencing would come, when the subject articles were found by people who had those references, and therefore a longer time frame was necessary to establish an article than most wikipedians were prepared to tolerate. So I suppose that I have to admit the flaw, even thoughit worked in some cases. The other issue is to maintain an article against attack when it comes, and Tania Rowles is that case. Tania is a household name as a result of John Rowles writing a song for her; "Tania this song is for You". Tania won music awards etc but deleted as not good enough. Tania has toured Australia and New Zealand for years, and is very well known, so it would be really nice to see her restored. really nice is irrelevant of course, in this space. I stil feel that as a group, we could pay homage to that part of enzed history, and defend articles about our key musicians and subjects, while the referencing process is in place. A quick scan around wikipedia shows zillions of articles of less importance, that just sit there unattended, and un-challenged. Its not logical, therefore it is emo and pov, despite all the protests. My current strategy is to recruit a bunch of wikipedian editors from real life, taht have respect for the subjects, and are prepared to find and post references, and vote as required. Another casualty is Flight X7 they had a record and performed at the biggest ever festival in New Zealand, (I engineered them) but got surgically removed. The drummer is famous in Australia, but that apparently does'nt count. Its good to note though, that many of those musicians have sons and daughters making good progress in the music business these days, and will appear here in time as they achieve notability, whatever that is deemed to be at the time. You would think gifting $1M to a science institution and publishing a book on poetry would be good enough, but Ruth Crisp didnt make it. Sad. So how about the myriad authors that are currently getting published? who is prepared to write about them? Robert Shaw his book is NCEA approved, and won best design award from the BPANZ. And then there is a new category that I need to research further, vj or video artist, what is the criteria for them? In the end, what happens here is a result of the collaboration that exists here, and I recomend that we work on that, resolve outstanding issues, or move ahead by agreement (significant consensus) and get on with the business of celbrating our own.Paul Moss (talk) 07:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that winning the Battle of the bands in the sixties would be notable. Anyone have a list? It was a Benny Levin intiative, and my band won for Auckland 1969 or 70, they were called the GAME, we got to record a single in Stebbings, un-released so not good enough for wikipedia? in April I received and posted up the newspaper clippings of the time, so I imagine it's verifiable at the newspaper archives where-ever they are. The band supported Human Instinct at The Bo Peep club. Lighting was by Lupus Lightworks, my company in partnership with the singer/songwriter, and that was advertised. Too obscure? It was mainstream at the time... Our lighting was state of the art and advertised as such in the papers. Are the real hard copy newspapers sufficient for wikipedia? does there have to be web references? If I quote the Sydney Morning Herald in November 1984, do I have to prove that the article exists and the content is actual? I have a copy but how can I prove for wikipedia use, that article exists and its content? Gavin Bertram is a music journalist who has told me he will write about that time for Real Groove. John Dix is another writer about the time, so a web version of Stranded in Paradise might help. If I use that book for reference, how do I make those robust for wikipedians? Another issue is that musicians might not release records as such and might not ever chart now; many kiwi musicians have huge followings overseas, particularly Europe, but almost nil notabilty here.

The criteria for bands is pretty standardised ( see WP:MUSICBIO ) and has various ways bands can make the cut. You can use non-online books and newspapers as sources ( see Wikipedia:Reliable sources ) . However Paul you should read WP:COI and some of the articles off it about people, bands and events that you have been personally involved with - SimonLyall (talk) 09:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I get that, note that I dont make any money and there is no commercial motive, and I think that we have all moved on from the early behaviours after gaining a better comprehension of what actually happens here, and how. " the more appropriate action would be to create a user page. In these cases, the article is normally moved into the user namespace rather than deleted. If you believe you may be notable enough, make your case on the appropriate talk pages, and seek consensus first, both with the notability and any proposed autobiography." I dont think it applies to defunct musicians/bands, but its not so important to me now, and clearly not important enough for many kiwi wikipedians to write and defend those articles either.. anyway, I got my notability in the real world, thats what counts. I still hope that the balance of activity will alter to fixing all the stubs and smaller articles, as opposed to running around dropping as much as possible to it's lowest common denominator, but thats up to you all, not me.Paul Moss (talk) 10:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Kiwipedians on Nightline

Hi there.

I really, really want to do a little story for TV3's nightline show about the people who keep our kiwi pages intact on Wikipedia.

I am no wiki expert... so I'm just gonna leave my email here - and would love to hear from you, especially if you're in Auckland, as that's where I'm based. But Wellington and ChCh are good also.

Thanks heaps, I'd really like to hear from you

dfarrier@tv3.co.nz

Dave Farrier arts & entertainment guy at tv3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.24.47 (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dave - it may also be worth putting this message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Auckland. Sadly, I'm in Dunedin or I'd be only too keen to help. Grutness...wha? 23:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I notice that the article David Farrier is getting quite a bit of anon vandalism, starting shortly after this post. Can a few people add it to their watchlists, please.-gadfium 09:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think the best solution for this would be to have the article deleted. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm intrigued at all this, I didnt see it at the time, but my question is simply is David Farrier notable and if so then why is there no replacement article for him? is he being punished for acting in ways that are perceived to be bad for wikipedia?Paul Moss (talk) 07:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Double post

Sorry - I really find these boards confusing! Ha!

Would you mind reposting that over there for me, and maybe dropping me an email? We have cameras in Dunedin, so I can interview you by proxy!

Thanks David. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.24.47 (talk) 23:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone know.....?

Does anyone know the status of the Wanganui council's proposed anti gang regalia law before Parliament? The Michael Laws article says "As a result, the Council has drafted a local bill for introduction into Parliament in early 2008 by Whanganui MP Chester Borrows. A subsequent gang-related drive-by shooting of a two-year-old toddler occurred in Wanganui and Laws reportedly seeks legislation to outlaw gangs as well as gang-patches." Needs updating, especially the bit about early 2008. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It passed its first reading and is currently being considered by a committee. That'll probably take a while, and it won't get to third reading before the election. See Debate growing over anti-gang law or search Google News for e.g. "Wanganui anti-gang bill".-gadfium 01:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. I'll update the article to suit. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Meet up

I was thinking of having a small meet-up for students at the University of Auckland and anyone else living close by. I only know one or two people that have edited Wikipedia, and have never been to the meet ups before, so I would be interested in meeting a few of the local Wikipedians. I would like to see a map of New Zealand with each person's rough location shown (via geocoding) - this would help a lot for organizing meet ups and other logistical things. Richard001 (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll come to such a meet-up, although I'm no longer a student, having finished my BSc a couple of months ago.

We agreed in principle to have an Auckland meetup every six months, but no one has raised the matter since the last one a year ago. If you want a larger meetup, we can display a message to all New Zealand Wikipedians via Wikipedia:Geonotice. For the last meetup, we tried to limit the message to those living between Whangarei and Hamilton, but because most people use ISPs which are nationwide, this didn't notify all Auckland editors, and did notify some much further afield.-gadfium 02:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I've just started Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians by location if that's any help. dramatic (talk) 04:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I was gonna suggest a new "Auckland" meetup recently but got sidetracked. We should start organising one - how about for October? Ingolfson (talk) 12:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

We could invite people from further afield if you like. I'd just like to meet a few 'pedians in person. I don't really want to travel too far from the university though. Richard001 (talk) 01:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless people have problems I can arrange one at the same place in Mt Eden as the last meetup. Say on Saturday October 11th at 1-4 or similar. I was there last week and the seem to be still running. - SimonLyall (talk) 21:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The date/time is good for me, but didn't we discuss finding somewhere quieter? I liked the room we had at Galbraith's; the only reason we didn't go back there is we had someone under 18 at the following meetup.-gadfium 23:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Under 18s should be fine at Galbraiths as long as they don't drink alcohol. I'm pretty sure I've seen children there in the past, but it might be worth checking if any underage people plan to come. --Helenalex (talk) 01:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Auckland 3#What location?, minors need to be accompanied by a guardian in a pub.-gadfium 01:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Galbraiths is okay with me. Best idea would be some sort of private room at a cafe somewhere but I can't think of any (a few places have "back rooms" but they have half their seating there). We might as well create the page and thrash out the venue there. - SimonLyall (talk) 11:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I've created Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland 4 . Please continue discussion there - SimonLyall (talk) 10:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Kiwipedians on Nightline, pt. 2

Well, it looks like this is going ahead sometime this week - I've just had two people from TV3 round here filming me pretending to edit a couple of pages :) Hope I didn't stuff things up too much in the interview... I hate trying to talk to cameras. Grutness...wha? 03:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Has it been on already? I'd like to watch it. Richard001 (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It was on Friday night.-gadfium 01:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You can see the interview [here] Matt (Talk) 02:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Official transcript and video here: How accurate is Wikipedia? – Matthew25187 (talk) 11:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Bucklands Beach skirmish

Could someone in Auckland please check out Bucklands Beach skirmish - it smells like nonsense or a hoax to me. Both the online references treat the landslips as a natural occurrence. Dramatic (talk · contribs) 13 September (I am currently having difficulty editing while logged in)

Even if completely true, and it seems to be at the least a considerable exaggeration, it does not seem notable enough for wikipedia. I would AFD it. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 23:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Have just checked the user who started the article and they appear to have done nothing else except annoy another user (who suspected he was a troll). I imagine the edits by one or both anonymous users are the same person. The article has already had a deletion tag added but removed again (by one of the anonymopus users) but I couldn't find it listed in the AFDs. It certainly should be deleted on the grounds of WP:Notability if nothing else. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 23:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The article was prodded, and any editor including the original author is entitled to remove the notice, preferably while making improvements to address the concerns raised. The appropriate next step is AfD, and I think it would be entirely appropriate for you to raise one. I don't believe it comes under any speedy deletion criterion.-gadfium 00:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I thought about speedy deletion too, but it doesn't meet the criteria. I've searched for any reference to this supposed incident and found nothing so it certainly looks like a hoax. The Afd will have to wait till I get home from work (unless someone else gets there first). haven't done one before so don't knbow how long it will take... DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 01:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

My problems logging in seem to have cleared themselves so I have listed the article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bucklands Beach skirmish. dramatic (talk) 08:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Date format poll confirmation

There is ongoing discussion on the talk page for the Manual of Style (including a series of polls) aimed at achieving consensus on presenting dates in American (February 6, 1840) or International (6 February 1840) format on an article by article basis. The poll gives full instructions, but briefly the choices are:

• C = Option C, the winner of the initial poll and run-off. (US articles have US format dates, international format otherwise)
• R = Retain existing wording. (National format for English-speaking countries, no guidance otherwise).

If you wish to participate or review the progress of discussion, you may follow this link. --Pete (talk) 01:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Lots of vandalism at Stokes Valley

For some reasojn the article on Stokes Valley seems to be being regularly vandalised. May be worth a couple of other Kiwis adding it to their watchlists... Grutness...wha? 06:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I have added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Vandalism patrol. This is effectively a part of my watchlist, and perhaps is utilised by a few other editors as well.-gadfium 08:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Media at meetup?

There was a clip about Wikipedians on TV3's nightline a while ago, and I was thinking maybe we could get them to come along to a meetup for a bit. Probably not this time, but maybe in a future meetup? I'm sure they would be interested in doing a follow up, and it would show something a bit different from last time. Thoughts? Richard001 (talk) 08:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

How often to Kiwi Wikipedians meet up? In Auckland or Wellington?

Lanma726 (talk) 01:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Auckland has agreed in principle to a six-monthly meetup schedule, but it only happens if someone prompts us, and no one did for the first half of this year. See Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland. There have been no formal meetups for other cities in New Zealand as yet, but you're welcome to organise one.-gadfium 05:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:New Zealand government agency chief executives?

Do we want a sub-cat of Category:New Zealand public servants as above? Or is this redundant as most of Category:New Zealand public servants are/were chief executives? Lanma726 (talk) 01:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually I worry about the notability of many of these articles. Many are unreferenced, and is there any independent coverage beyond the fact that they occupy the position? For most large private companies, the CEO would not warrant their own article. dramatic (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair call. I was running on the (perhaps incorrect) assumption that being the chief executive of a state agency made someone notible, especially next to a guy like this. Lanma726 (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

A year's hindsight shows why people briefly in the limelight shouldn't necessarily have articles. I've just slapped a merge tag on that. dramatic (talk) 02:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

A sub-cat for NZ government agency chief executives would be useful. However, what is more urgent in my opinion is that the list of government agencies is updated and that at least some minimal information is entered into the articles so there is less red text about. I don't think every CEO needs a mention; just those who are notable because of specific issues and/or who have articles because of some other role they held before or after their CEO role. There are a number of public servants on the list who have not been CEOs, and there are potentially many more who should be included on the list. I see no harm in including them, as long as they are notable. Notability is not a measure of media exposure; the scale and scope of someone's activity may be numerically small, but they may have made a notable contribution to New Zealand's history or people's lives through leaving their mark on the administration of state services. In many ways, state CEOs are by definition more notable than private CEOs. As for the article on Robert Arnold, whether the 'achievements' of the 'artist' are to one's personal taste or not, they deserve mention in wiki because he has (apparently) appeared in TV shows and films independently of the boy band. I think the real problem with the article is not that it should simply be merged or deleted, but that it should be strenuously tidied up to make it encyclopaedic. This would make it short and factual, with no colloquial or pejorative terms. In fact, against my better judgement, I am powerless to resist the temptation to fix it right now... we shall see how long my changes last... --Januarian (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggested split of Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in New Zealand

The category's getting pretty big, and splitting it into subcategories has been suggested aat Category talk:Wikipedia requested photographs in New Zealand. Input from here would very welcome. Grutness...wha? 23:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Reviving the New Zealand collaboration

The Auckland meetup discussed reviving the New Zealand collaboration, but making it monthly rather than fortnightly. Accordingly, I have moved the pages to drop the word "fortnightly", and suggest we launch a new collaboration starting at the beginning of DecemberNovember. Please see New Zealand collaboration, and nominate and vote for topics.-gadfium 04:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the proposed restart month.-gadfium 05:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Whenuapai

Would some Auckland editors like to take a look at Whenuapai. It's quite detailed, short on references, and the section on the current situation seems to be stating a POV. dramatic (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It certainly does! Much of the content does not appear to be encyclopedic. I'm happy to take a scythe to it if there are no objections. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 22:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, have had a first go at it. I don't think I've been too over zealous but there is now an inconsistency of style that may need tidying up. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 03:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Article for deletion

The article Ruth Crisp has been nominated for deletion. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruth Crisp. — CactusWriter | ^needles 09:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Or if you want to keep an eye on NZ related deletions then watch Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/New Zealand and add any others that are missing - SimonLyall (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Election 2008 taskforce

Many, many pages will need updating after the election, and I think that it would be best for tasks to be shared out in an organised manner so that we don't end up with some pages out of date for months, two people trying to do the same task, etc. So I have set up Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Election 2008 taskforce to list all the stuff that needs doing and roughly when it should be done by. If you want to bags a particular task, put your name next to it and try to get it done asap after the election. Some things, like updating the electorate pages, should probably be divided amongst more than one person, so if you want, nominate yourself for a certain range (A-M or whatever). Also feel free to add pages which should be on there but aren't. --Helenalex (talk) 05:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Small town articles and stubs - has anyone tried to make them more consistent in style?

I am very new to all of this so don't know what anyone else might have tried. I've had a look at the articles of small towns in my area (Southland) and noticed there's no consistent style to the articles (and some minor errors of fact and typography); and up to half of each article is information can be about the rail service to the town in the early and mid 20th century. I was wondering whether it would be a good idea to try to reformat the articles for clarity, fix what errors I'm certain of, and add brief information on topics I have access to reliable sources on (e.g. distances to major towns, the meaning of some place names, postcodes and mail delivery, etc.) I'd also be particularly interested in hearing from anyone else who has tried doing this with areas elsewhere in the country. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm the guy responsible for the rail information - I've hit most regions of the South Island, and patches of the North. Whenever I write articles on railway lines, I like to add information about the line to towns with existing articles and make new articles for all the redlinked localities (whether I actually comprehensively do that is another matter entirely!). I think all of the articles I've started are consistent in style, or at least were so when I made them; some have been modified for better or worse since. I don't intentionally just load the articles with railway information; simple fact of the matter is that I have the railway information readily at hand, while Google searches often don't turn up much more information, so I have little else to go on despite my best intentions. All are made in the hope that somebody else will come along with information at hand about other details of the town's economy, history, etc. So I'd be thrilled to see expansion along those lines. - Axver (talk) 11:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The ones I made were consistent when I made them (I made close to 1000 articles on places in NZ - especially in the southern South Island, and later added a lot of standardised maps) but that was several years ago. The problem (also the good thing) with Wikipedia is individual editors edit what they want and all have different approaches. When there's a large effort by one across all of a type of article (such as mine with the article creation, Axver's railway additions, and the school additions that Gadfium's been working on) they briefly gain some sort of conformity, but that disappears again when individual editors come along. As the articles get bigger that can be standfardised more permanently, but any stubby articles are always going to be changed considerably with each new edit. Grutness...wha? 21:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I would offer Gadfium's recent Northland communities as a good model: They usually include a bit of history, the local school etc. Other basics: Geodata via the coord template (www.satsig.net has a good google maps applet for getting the coords, otherwise the LINZ database.), and population data if you can find it in the 2006 census results (they don't seem to have mapped meshblocks for communities under 500 people this time). Always add a references section. And always add a WPNZ template to the talk page (sideways glance in Grutness' direction, I've been following his footsteps through Gisborne district this week :-). dramatic (talk) 03:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, yeah. Point taken. I was more concerned with getting the 60 gisborne-geo-stub tags necessary for a separate stub category :) Grutness...wha? 04:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I'll add that the following things are generally worth adding to any new geo-stub article (such as new articles on New Zealand places) if they can be found:

• location - region/province. Distance to other places, especially nearest larger town. Nearby rivers, lakes, coast, state highways
• origin and/or meaning of name. Any former names
• population. Any famous locals. Any other reason for place's notability

If a location article has all of them, plus the relevant stub tag, region category and landform/settlement category, then it's well on its way to being a reasonable start. Grutness...wha? 04:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts. I was actually sort of half hoping that the reaction would be "Don't worry, someone else is already on to it"... Axver, thanks for the railway info. I've got some authoritative sources to hand on much more esoteric subjects (meanings of place names, post office histories, county councils, etc.); also some less than authoritative sources (e.g. an interesting book on ghost towns which, alas, repeats popular legends as though fact). I'm hoping that, if I have enough spare time over the New Year break, I'll be able to add some information. (I am on an extremely bad internet connection and thus won't be able to do much in a hurry). Grutness, thanks for creating the articles. Is it considered good form or bad form to edit articles not so much to add or correct information, but just to format them for clarity of presentation and information? I don't plan on adding any new articles as of yet; and as yet am not quite sure what a WPNZ template actually is. Dramatic, thanks for the recommendation. I have some mapping software which includes co-ordinates (both lat/long and GD49 easting/northing), and the entire 1:50 000 topomap series as raster images. I could possibly obtain meshblock population data but for most of the towns I am interested in, it would be of little use as rural mesh blocks seem to use major roads as dividing lines; for example, data for Lochiel, a small town on the border of two mesh blocks, is meaningless as the last time I checked the mesh block boundaries in the area, the two mesh blocks the town is covered by extend from Ryal Bush right up to the outskirts of Winton. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

My approach is that a locality article should have:

• An infobox, using {{Infobox Settlement}} if it's an independent town or locality, or {{Infobox New Zealand suburbs}} if it's part of a larger urban area. Add a location map and coordinates if a suburb if these are not included in the infobox.
• A description of where it is; the region and country, with distances and directions to surrounding localities. Suburbs have the surrounds built in to the infobox. A description of local mountains, rivers, bays, state highways etc is good too. For towns/localities, this can be sourced to a road atlas.
• Population, if the locality has its own entry in the 2006 census. I use one of the spreadsheets on the subpages of [2] to determine this.
• History, if available. Web resources can help, but mostly I rely on history books I get out of the local library. Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand is very helpful for some parts of the country, but they're still working on other parts.
• Notable people. I usually look at "What links here" to determine if we have articles about people with connections to the locality.
• Schools, using the appropriate subpage of List of schools in New Zealand.
• References section (I usually call it "Notes" rather than "References", but either is fine).
• External links - I tend to include the school website for a small locality, but some people regard this as unnecessary or spammy. Sometimes there's a great website giving local history. I tend to avoid those which are promoting local businesses, and definitely avoid websites which claim to be local but have no local content.
• Picture if I can find one with a suitable license on Flickr. If I've managed to produce a half-decent article I might email flickr contributors who have non-free licenses to release otherwise-suitable photos under a free license. So far, I've had mostly good responses to these approaches.
• District or regional category. Stub template if the article is less than 2,500-3,000 bytes.
• On the talk page, add {{WikiProject New Zealand}} with a gauge of importance and quality, and a {{reqphotoin}} if appropriate.

If I'm working on an existing article I tend to be less thorough than if I'm creating a new article, but my sources come from google search, google book search, history books from the local library, Te Ara, the Ministry of Education tki site, the local school website(s), and a google search of edgazette.govt.nz to get school jubilee dates.-gadfium 08:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd be able to contribute some of that information - particularly of geography and location; and I could provide the postcode(s) of the towns from NZ Post sources if they would be of interest. Schools I don't know much about and I'll leave internet links, etc., for people on good connections. Daveosaurus (talk) 10:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

A couple of good paper/non-web references are the excellent, if dated, Wises New Zealand guide and Reed's "Place names of New Zealand". Other than that, local history books and of course ye mighty web are top places to hunt. Daveosaurus, it's perfectly acceptable to refactor other people's work on articles - that's what a lot of WP work involves. If you can improve any that are a mess, or if you can make them more uniform, go for it. BTW, the regional template maps that Gadfium's been using have been my work and I'm perfectly happy to make the rest of the in them same format (I've actually got a couple half done, waiting for him to say "Southland next, please" or whatever). As for photos, there are Wikipedians across the country usually willing to help out if there are some missing (the {{reqphotoin}} template is pretty useful, and can now be used with New Zealand, Auckland, or Otago as parameters...I should probably get on to making a few more categories like Wellington and Canterbury, too). Oh, and I feel your pain as far as the internet connection's concerned, Dave - I'm on dialup and have a glitching browser (if I type something into the menu bar it crashes - I'm having to navigate from bluelink to bluelink!) Grutness...wha? 10:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree as to the Wises New Zealand Guide. I have the 1994 edition and it is a good reference. I also have George Griffiths' book on Maori place names. As for photograph requests, I'm also planning on borrowing a digital camera the next time I do a day's field work and seeing what photographs I can find that would work. Daveosaurus (talk) 10:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

New Plymouth

An SPA (that's single purpose account) named user:NPDC (yep- I'm guessing it's the Council's publicity department) has been adding a lot of mostly promotional material to New Plymouth. Does anyone share my feeling that they've gone too far? Certainly there is a lot of referencing needed. dramatic (talk) 08:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC) (in New Plymouth)

There certainly seems to be a lot of pov that looks like c&p. If it isn't encyclopedic then it should be removed. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 10:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Politics - Honourable for life

Hi, a few of us have been working on the Australian WikiProject on ministry/cabinet lists and such, and I've managed to get a list from reliable sources of all NZ politicians who have been granted the right to use the title Honourable for life since 1994 (getting more would require access to a uni or reference library in NZ), as well as some information about ministry compositions. If anyone's interested, I would be happy to look into getting some stuff done in December in parallel with work I'm already doing for Western Australia (see e.g. member list; ministry), but I'd like to hear first from the local politics editors so I don't step on any toes or duplicate stuff already in progress. Thanks :) Orderinchaos 02:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Sortable lists of electorates

Do others think this is a worthwhile endeavour? For each election, we could have a sortable list of the party votes received for each party in each electorate. The Parliamentary Library is a good source for this. - Nichlemn (talk) 09:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

NZ On Screen as a source

NZ On Screen is a new website that showcases NZ-produced television, film and music videos. A great deal of information is provided for each title and each person profiled in the site. The site is non-profit, commercial free and public good (government funded).

I would like to offer the site as a source / resource for Wikipedia in articles related to relevant people or titles. Content on NZ On Screen is made available under a Creative Commons licence.

I unknowingly started off with Wikipedia on the wrong foot by just adding links and have subsequently been blocked. So I would like to know firstly if this forum considers NZ On Screen as a potentially valid source of useful information to Wikipedia articles, and secondly what would be the most appropriate way to manage including such links into Wikipedia?

Brenda.Leeuw (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Brenda Leeuwenberg

It's NZ on air funded so must be subject to rigourus rules. To make it easy to check here is the url NZ On Screen looks good to me. Paul Moss (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, these are useful links. You might consider using an edit summary which links to this discussion when adding such links to make it clear that you have discussed them with the relevant WikiProject.-gadfium 19:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

STARS - Warwick Blair's latest project

The STARS opens tomorrow night at NZFA 5pm and runs 24hrs on repeat until dec 24th. The movie is one of six, actually 48 movies each of 3 hours duration, six screens for 24 hrs! The movies are the visuals for Warwick Blairs latest project STARS, performed at Dunedin Public Art Gallery on Oct 18th/19th, and to be performed at the Auckland Fringe Festival feb 27/28th at Galatos. seeNew Zealand Film Archive. so if any of you feel like wrting about it there is plenty of media coverage.. Paul Moss (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that the New Zealand Film Archive is an authouritative source good for wikipedia and therefore request that a wikipedian creates an article on this significant enzed work. There is enough material just in the NZFA article alone to run with here:

http://www.filmarchive.org.nz/content/view/81/2/ The audio-video installation has been running continuously since 5pm 29th November repeating daily, the installation consists of 8 music pieces that create 8 'Praharas' of 3 hours each when played back to back. The 8 videos are 3 hours duration each and create a record of one full rotation of planet earth when played as a set. Each video represents the real world and is timed accordingly, so that sunrises and sunsets are moved dependending on the performance date and latitude. There have been three distinct performances, a preview at Gus Fisher Gallery, a full 5 screen 24 hour installation with live Indian singer at Dunedin Public Art Gallery, and an outdoor single screen performance at the New Zealand Film Archive which runs 24/7 until the 24th Dec. The audio so far delivered to the Wellington public at the NZFA amounts to 19 days x 24 files @140mb mp3's, or 64 gigabytes and the video delivered is 19 days x 8 files x 9gb or 14 Terrabytes. The material used for the night sequences is created from some of the best astro-photographers in enzed, and some of those appeared on an NZPOST stamp issue last year. Information about the project and the artists involved has been mentioned and advertised in many newspapers over the last few years, including D-Scene, The Otago Daily News, The Dominion Post, Kapi-Mana News, The Wellingtonian, and on major eventing sites such as Eventfinder, XtraYahoo, AA, and countless more.. The thematic of the work is health and healing; by playing specific music at specific times, according to ancient Indian gandharva veda time theory. The musicians involved have a huge background in music in both New Zealand, India, and the world, and are very well known artists in their own right.Paul Moss (talk) 02:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:English-language current affairs magazines and White Fungus Magazine

I came across the above template of English-language current affairs magazines and noticed that the 4 NZ entries are The Listener, North & South , Investigate and White Fungus Magazine. I'm not sure that the last two, especially White Fungus ( which I have never heard of and looks a little "experimental" ) are the best entries. Perhaps Metro as an alternative? Thoughts, especially if you've actually read White Fungus - SimonLyall (talk) 10:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I support adding Metro. It seems reasonable for Investigate to be there too, although I don't consider it a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. I think White Fungus being published only twice a year might exclude it from being considered a current affairs magazine, and it is considerably less well-known than the others on the list.-gadfium 18:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Certainly if White Fungus isn't a "major" title in its home country: not well-known or well-circulated, I support removing it. Metro had previous been added, and I removed it on 13 November because I thought "Metro is purely lifestyle". Do I have the wrong impression of the magazine?

Btw, the publishing frequency of a title doesn't in itself stop it from covering Current affairs (news format). Robertbyrne (talk) 13:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Since there has been no protest so far, I am going to remove Metro, which doesn't seem to cover current affairs (i.e. serious news stories and analysis) and therefore doesn't match the criteria for this template. Robertbyrne (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't read Metro, so I don't know if it has changed in recent years, but it certainly has a past history of notable investigative journalism - e.g. the article "An Unfortunate Incident at Auckland Hospital" (see Cartwright Inquiry). dramatic (talk) 09:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying but Metro does cover current affairs to some extent. - SimonLyall (talk) 10:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

When I go to the Metro website I don't see current affairs, but maybe this is not indicative of the content of the magazine? Every other title in the template has a clear current affairs/analysis component. A very literary/arts example is Granta, but go to its website and you will see, right now for instance, a piece on "The attacks in Mumbai". Metro looks more like Toronto Life, which I would not include in this navbox.

Assuming I'm missing the point entirely and the print edition of Metro really does cover serious news, then I support you if you go ahead and add it back in. (Please add the navbox to the Metro article in that case.) If Metro historically covered serious news, then I support leaving it out. As it says in the criteria for the navbox "this template is not an historical archive". If the magazine is no longer a mix of current affairs and culture, leave it out. Robertbyrne (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not the magazine's main focus, but it does still have a current affairs component, often from an Auckland angle. For example, searching on their website for "election" gave several recent current affairs articles, such as Leaders' Interview - Metro asks Helen Clark and John Key the hard questions, The Former Boy Wonder, and How Good Is Your MP?. I support keeping it. -- Avenue (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedians for hire

What are people's views on people being paid to edit Wikipedia on behalf of companies, political parties and so forth? We regularly see companies trying to do this themselves and doing a terrible job of it - PR-speak, pages for non-notable companies and so forth - so presumably it would be better if this was done by someone who knew what they were doing and what Wikipedia's policies on notability, npov etc are. Done properly it would be pretty much indistinguishable from anyone else's work.

I've had a look at the page on conflict of interest and it seems reasonably clear that editing a page on your company or whatever is okay as long as you abide by Wikipedia policy, don't make contentious or opinionated edits, and are open about what you are doing. On the other hand, there have been a few minor scandals (mostly linked to Wikiscanner) about people editing their company's page or attempting to hire someone else to do so. I think the main problems with what they were doing were generally either the secrecy or editing which would be problematic no matter who was doing it. With this in mind I've written a proposed code of conduct for people doing this kind of thing, and would appreciate feedback, either here on on its talkpage. --Helenalex (talk) 01:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Previous discussions about a specific person who advertised his services to write Wikipedia articles for companies were against the practice. See the Signpost articles Wikimercenaries and MyWikiBiz. The same editor continued to put forward the idea until recently: older versions of User talk:Thekohser may shed some light. More recently, he's been making similar arguments at Citizendium.

I haven't been involved in the debates myself.-gadfium 02:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem there seems to have been that this guy was creating articles of dubious notability, rather than that he was doing it for money per se. I may be missing the point, though. --Helenalex (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You'll get more feedback if you mention your proposal at Village pump (proposals).-gadfium 03:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that COI editing is generally ok, I support the guideline which says strongly discouraged. For example, staff from the NZ AA and Dunedin Public Libraries have made conscientious, well-meaning edits that nevertheless started to use the article to promote the organisation. User Abe Gray (spokeperson for Otago Norml) on the other hand knowingly libelled two top university officers on one of his first edits.

Is the Wikipedia:Bounty board of interest in relation to "for hire"? XLerate (talk) 03:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Mackenzie Basin edit war

Hi folks, I am currently engaged in a little pissy edit war (running back and forth over months) with an anonymous editor over Mackenzie Basin and whether I am allowed to include a reference from the travel section of The New Zealand Herald that dared to compare the local skifields with the Queenstown ones. I am fully aware that I am behaving a bit peeved, but as I explain on the talk page, I am sick of Wikipedia constantly being reduced to the lowest common ground. Can people have a look and assist / tell me if I am in the wrong? Ingolfson (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mackenzie_Basin

Hey Ingolfson. Regardless that the Herald made a comparison, I can't see the relevance of it appearing in our article. What am I missing?Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long - I think it is relevant in so far as any information that makes sense in an article should not be removed just because someone objects to it. Wikipedia should not be a race to the bottom of the lowest common ground we can agree on. If something is referenced, then it should stay if it is relevant. And why should information about the ski areas of a geographic area not be relevant for an article? Ingolfson (talk) 07:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations to Waihekepedia

Waihekepedia - the Wiki for Waiheke Island - is celebrating its 500th article. By contrast, we have 11 articles in Category:Waiheke Island, and a further 26 in Category:Hauraki Gulf. Waihekepedia is providing a valuable resource for the third most populous island in New Zealand.-gadfium 22:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it third already? Time for them to secede from Auckland City ;-) Ingolfson (talk) 05:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You're not the first to think of that. See the 1990 attempt and a current proposal.-gadfium 06:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)