Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

Second-biggest city

Spotted this being discussed on Twitter by User:Comingupcharlienz (lovely user name, mate!), so went to see what had been changed. Here's the edit summary for Christchurch having a higher population than Wellington:

Corrected the claim that Wellington was larger than Christchurch, which was based on the outdated NZSAC92 standard, which was replaced in 2018. Under the modern standard, used by government agency Statistics NZ, Christchurch is significantly larger than Wellington by population. See this page: http://archive.stats.govt.nz/methods/classifications-and-standards/classification-related-stats-standards/geographic-areas.aspx

Now I haven't got to the bottom of where it subsequently states metro population data. But if the standard for how this is measured has changed, and Christchurch is now "bigger" than Wellington, surely we must reflect that here? Gadfium, I'm not sure that it needs a big discussion around that. You said in your revert:

The figures we're using here show Wellington to have a larger urban population. To change the claim, we would need to use the 2018 figures in all articles on NZ urban centres. Please propose that change at WP:NZWNB)

I would have thought that we don't immediately have to update all of Template:NZ population data to 2018 data, but if there are key aspects wrong, and there's a reliable source for it being wrong, we could instead ditch the template in that case, provide a source manually, and show what the true story is. How does that sound?

That said, I see that there is also Template:NZ population data 2018. So are the data already available? Lcmortensen, I see that you maintain the underlying data, and that (as per "Table 3A = Main urban areas") Wellington (418,500) appears to have a larger population than Christchurch (404,500). Could you shed some light on that, please? Schwede66 03:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:NZ population data continues to use the older NZSAC92 standard, while Template:NZ population data 2018 uses the newer SSGA18 standard. A new template was required for SSGA18, at least in the interim, since many of the urban area names and boundaries are not backwards-compatible with NZSAC92. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 03:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

If we update Christchurch to use {{NZ population data 2018}}, but don't update Wellington, then we are comparing unlike figures, so at the very least, we need to update both, and it would seem sensible to go through the links to the old template and replace any use which doesn't appear historical. We also need to eyeball each article for comparisons which might no longer be accurate. List of cities in New Zealand should also be updated. Urban areas of New Zealand already has both 2018 and the older standard, but perhaps we should put the 2018 standard first. List of New Zealand urban areas by population has both figures side by side. I'm happy to go through and do these changes, if I get feedback that my plan is sane.-gadfium 04:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Urban areas can't cross territorial authority boundaries in SSGA18, whereas they can in NZSAC92. The "Wellington" in 2018 refers to only the Wellington City Council part of the metro area, whereas the "Wellington" in 1992 includes Porirua, Lower Hutt and Upper Hutt.

For comparison, you can see the maps of the boundaries here: 1992 2018

Also, I've moved {{NZ population data}} to {{NZ population data 1992}} with a redirect, so we know which version is which. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 06:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Gadfium, what you say makes sense. I never thought of updating just the Christchurch article and not the Wellington one. But we might as well do the whole lot and it's good to see that both template sets are up to date. Good work all round! Schwede66 09:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I've amended the Christchurch article to say it can be regarded as the second- or third-largest, linking to List of New Zealand urban areas by population because that shows both figures, and including an explanation in a footnote. Later today, I'll start changing most uses of {{NZ population data 1992}} to {{NZ population data 2018}} unless I hear an objection.-gadfium 17:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Glad to see this is in capable hands; thank you, folks, for speedily sorting this out as soon as a journalist mentioned on Twitter it was an issue. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I start going through the links to {{NZ population data}}, and in the first dozen entries, all seemed to be reasonable uses of the template, either because the boundaries hadn't changed (e.g. for Districts and Regions - and I checked that Auckland and Marlborough, which have changed boundaries since 1992, were correct) or because using urban areas rather than the territorial areas seemed appropriate. I also spot-checked several other links. It seems other editor have already done the work required. I'll go back to the Christchurch and Wellington articles and try to get a better wording about their rankings.-gadfium 03:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by the current wording - "The urban area is home to 404,500 residents,[2] making it New Zealand's third-most populous urban area behind Auckland and Wellington, and the territorial authority has 377,200 people[3] which makes it the second most populous city, as Wellington city is less populous despite having a larger urban population". Under SSGA18, the former Wellington urban area was split into two major urban areas (called Wellington and Lower Hutt) and two large urban areas (called Porirua and Upper Hutt). The new Christchurch urban area is now much more populated than the new Wellington urban area. Their respective populations are correctly listed on this page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Zealand_urban_areas_by_population#cite_note-NZ_population_data_2018-2. The wording above seems to arbitrarily merge the four Wellington urban areas together, incorrectly claiming them as one. I would suggest it be changed back to what it was earlier, clarifying that Christchurch is larger under the modern Stats NZ standard, but Wellington was once deemed larger. (Apologies if I'm doing this incorrectly, I'm new to this). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comingupcharlienz (talk • contribs) 07:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the wording you quoted is confusing. Perhaps the way to make it less confusing is to distinguish between greater Wellington (which includes the Hutt Valley, and Porirua), and Wellington city proper. E.g.

"The urban area is home to 404,500 residents,[2] making it New Zealand's third-most populous urban area behind Auckland and greater Wellington. The territorial authority has 377,200 people[3] which makes it the second most populous city, as Wellington city is less populous than Christchurch city, despite Wellington having a larger urban population in its greater metropolitan area". Ross Finlayson (talk) 07:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

There is a major urban area around Wellington, which includes Hutt Valley and Porirua, which the 1992 standard recognises (with boundaries updated to 2017), but the 2018 standard doesn't extend beyond territory limits. There is also an urban area extending beyond Christchurch City's territorial limits, including Rolleston and Lincoln, but that urban area has less populaton than Wellington's, even though Christchurch city has more people than Wellington city. The articles do not perhaps do a very good job of distinguishing between city limits and urban limits, but the Wellington article is dealing with the urban area, with a separate article on Wellington City Council for the territorial body, while Christchurch deals with both the territorial body and the urban area. I would be happy with Ross Finlayson's wording, except that the term "greater Wellington" (against my expectations) usually refers to the Wellington District rather than the Wellington urban area. Metropolitan area might be an appropriate synonym for urban area.-gadfium 08:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree it would be more accurate to say "greater Wellington" is more populated than "greater Christchurch", but as far as I'm aware, neither term is formally used by Stats NZ - they're social constructs. And I don't quite understand why the 1992 standard has any relevance, considering it was explicitly replaced by the 2018 standard, which has specifically defined "urban areas" that are unrelated to political boundaries, which are what territories are.If you're going to cite a standard as authoritative, it should surely be the current one, not the one it replaced. The simplest solution to me is to simply note that Christchurch is the second-largest urban area, and Wellington is the third-largest urban area, as that is what is recognised by the government authority. If a caveat is required, you could say Wellington is larger if you include Lower Hutt, Upper Hutt, and Porirua, though I don't know why that would be necessary, given they are cities in their own right. I don't see why it needs to be more complicated than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comingupcharlienz (talk • contribs) 22:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that some 'caveat' is needed, because most New Zealanders would consider 'Wellington' to be the country's second-largest 'city' - thinking of 'Wellington' as meaning 'greater Wellington' (or 'the Wellington metropolitan area'; choose your favourite wording), and 'city' as meaning 'urban area'. Yes, "greater Wellington" and "greater Christchurch" are 'social constructs'; that's precisely the point here. Simply stating that "Christchurch is the second-largest urban area" - without some caveat - would be a mistake, because this would (at first glance) appear, to most NZers, to be an error. Ross Finlayson (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Whether people would think it was an error or not seems both speculative and not particularly relevant - it is objectively true that Christchurch is a more populated urban area than the Wellington urban area. I have still not seen any justification for why the population of 'Wellington City' should also include the populations of three other cities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comingupcharlienz (talk • contribs) 23:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I too would like to see a definition of "Wellington" the city that includes the Hutt and Porirua, and a definition of "greater Wellington", both with references please. And especially one for "greater Christchurch", whatever that supposedly includes: Rangiora? Kaiapoi? Rolleston? Lincoln? Appealing to what "most New Zealanders" think is not enough, since "most New Zealanders" may not think of Dunedin as smaller than Lower Hutt (or even Tauranga). An opinion poll where people rank the size of NZ cities would be interesting, but it shouldn't determine the content of Wikipedia. --Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

In case it's not already obvious (to people who took the time to carefully read what I wrote), my comment about taking into account what "most New Zealanders would consider" was merely in reference to whether or not it's a good idea to add a 'caveat' to the fact ('objective truth') that Christchurch City is more populous than Wellington City. If you choose not to add such a caveat, then I don't really care. It won't be me who'll be frequently reverting edits by people who mistakenly think that it's wrong. Ross Finlayson (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Map of the Wellington Urban Area

I think the article Wellington, which currently covers four cities (the 1992 standard), probably needs to be rewritten to the 2018 standard, which is mostly the same as the 1992 standard called the Wellington Zone. It includes a little less than half of the Wellington City area, excluding its rural areas. A new article on the Wellington Urban Area can deal with the urban part of the four cities, and might be quite short, similar to Hamilton Urban Area. Alternatively, rename the current article to Wellington Urban Area, removing material which is really about the capital city, and create a new article for the 2018 standard. The article on Christchurch similarly is dealing with the area in the 1992 standard, but this differs less from the 2018 standard. It currently covers areas to the north and south of the 2018-defined urban area. In the 2018 standard, those areas to the north and south are combined with Banks Peninsula as "Other rural Christchurch City", so perhaps they are not really urban. I don't think the article on Christchurch needs a major rewrite as much as the Wellington one does. Articles on other urban areas will probably also need work, but this is much more extensive than I was envisaging when I said I would update articles to use the 2018 standard. In the meantime, I suggest the rewriting of the lead at Christchurch to use only the 2018 template, as follows:

"The urban area is home to 403,300 residents, and the territorial authority has 415,100 people which makes it the second-most populous city after Auckland"

and the infobox figures including the area should be adjusted to match. This is a change in my position. I welcome alternatives.-gadfium 03:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to get up to speed with these two standards. There's a couple of related comments made above that I don't yet follow. Lcmortensen said, "Urban areas can't cross territorial authority boundaries in SSGA18", and gadfium said, "the 2018 standard doesn't extend beyond territory limits". What are these statements based on? I am having trouble reconciling them with "Urban boundaries are independent of local government and other administrative boundaries, that is, an urban area may be contained within one or more local government region or administrative areas." (Statistical standard for geographic areas 2018, p. 15.) Nurg (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I have got a couple of things wrong above. The 2018 standard seems much more reluctant to extend urban areas across territorial limits, but there seem to be some examples where it does. I have trouble finding out what the boundaries are for each area. The maps linked to by Lcmortenen are very useful, but while for example I can see the Hamilton area, I can't see the Hamilton City area, which has slightly less population. What's the difference between them? Secondly, I mentioned the Christchurch urban area as including Rolleston and Lincoln, but even the 1992 standard does not include those towns. The comparison of urban population between Christchurch and Wellington may well be different if we include such satellite towns. I've come to the conclusion that giving the 2018 figure for urban area and not making comparisons with other urban areas is the safest way to proceed.-gadfium 17:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

gadfium, go to Stats NZ geographic boundary viewer. Toggle the 'Urban Rural' layer to see the urban areas. Expand with the right-arrow head to get earlier years. Nurg (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Oops. I forgot to mention that the region and TA data is the 2019 update on the 2018 data, which uses a new method for calculating migration. The urban area data still uses the original 2018 data with old-method migration, since the update is not yet available. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 08:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

References

According to the methodology for the 2018 standard, the only urban area that crosses territorial boundaries is Richmond near Nelson. Stats NZ has a digital map showing the boundaries for each urban rural area under the 2018 standard https://datafinder.stats.govt.nz/layer/98752-urban-rural-2019-generalised/. It does not include the population for each, unfortunately, but that can be obtained elsewhere using the respective urban area codes. As an aside, a journalist colleague of mine has been corresponding with Stats NZ on this issue, which has provided 2019 population estimates for both 'greater Wellington'and 'greater Christchurch', which shows the latter to have a larger population. This means regardless of which metric you use - the legal city boundaries, the statistical urban area boundaries, or the social 'greater' city boundaries - Christchurch is the more populated city. But it is perhaps safer to stick with the urban rural boundaries, as a consistent standard across the country. Comingupcharlienz (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

That's interesting to see; thanks for doing this work. Based on the (to me) surprising result that the population of 'greater Christchurch' is also higher than that of 'greater Wellington' (assuming that it's generally understood that the latter doesn't include the Kapiti Coast), I withdraw my earlier comment that there should be some 'caveat' added when stating this result. Thanks again for helping make Wikipedia correspond to on-the-ground reality! Ross Finlayson (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Right then, we have a further reliable source in this article. Or do we not? Is does the author of those lines possibly have a conflict of interest? Just kidding; it's a great write-up of this situation.

Anyway, on a more serious note. The demographics section of the Christchurch article needs updating and it should also give more context, e.g. the change in standard used by StatsNZ. I'm working on a bio at the moment but when I'm done and this hasn't been fixed yet, I shall give it a go myself. Once that's done, we can possibly more concisely summarise the population situation than what's currently there. And once Christchurch is 'fixed', the content can be copied to the Wellington article and adjusted accordingly. Schwede66 06:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

For background, here is a 2012 article from Stats NZ busting the myth that Before the 2011/12 earthquakes, Christchurch had overtaken Wellington to become New Zealand’s second largest city. Nurg (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

In the first instance, I have edited List of cities in New Zealand. I thought it wise to include the population data for both standards, hence there are now two tables, with text explaining where the difference comes from. See whether that works for you. The 2018 population data table contains an additional five "large urban areas" and my choice of photos could possibly be improved upon. Schwede66 20:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

When I went through the uses of the 1992 template ({{NZ population data 1992}}) on 11/12 January, I concluded that there was no need for widespread replacement, because in most cases the boundaries hadn't changed and the two templates gave exactly the same result, or using the urban areas rather than the territorial areas seemed appropriate. However, my report back above was out of date at about the time I made it, as the 2018 template ({{NZ population data 2018}}) received its annual update, and the 1992 template kept the earlier data. It then became appropriate to give higher priority to moving to the 2018 template.

I have now changed to use the 2018 template wherever it seems reasonable to do so. There are some remaining uses of the old template:

1. Articles which compare the old NZSAC92 and new SSGA18 standards
2. Articles on former territorial authorities, such as North Shore City
3. Articles on urban areas which are not covered by the new template, and which do not seem like a good fit for using arithmetic to add together smaller centres within the urban area. For example, Hamilton Urban Area includes a number of small towns which are not covered by the new template as well as larger settlement which are covered, and Taipa-Mangonui is not covered by the new template at all, presumably because none of the four individual settlements making up the area has a large enough population to qualify.
4. Articles dealing with a specific time in the past. 2010 Wellington local elections is the only example of this. The article should have populations at the time of the elections, not current populations. The old template does not achieve this very well, having 2018 figures, but the new template would be even less appropriate with future updates and possibly different boundaries.

I will now turn my attention to incorporating 2018 census data into geographical articles per the #2018 demographics section below this, which might allow me to tidy up some of the above issues.-gadfium 05:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Links to DAB pages

I have collected two articles with New Zealand- or Polynesia-related links to DAB pages where expert help would be welcome. Search for "disam" in read mode and for"{d" in edit mode; and if you solve either of these puzzles, remove the {{dn}} tag and post {{done}} here.

• Māori Land Court (there are two in this one)
• Tiki mugs

Thanks in advance, Narky Blert (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Māori Land Court  Done. Nurg (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Tiki mugs  Done. Nurg (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

New category created

Kia ora koutou, Ipigott has created a new category, Category:New Zealand Māori women academics and populated it - please take a look over it and if you see someone missing, go ahead and add her! MurielMary (talk) 10:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Stuff article on Wikipedians in NZ

Kia ora koutou, Stuff is writing a story about NZers involved with Wikipedia - if you are interested in speaking to the reporter reply here and I'll send her phone number to you by email. Cheers! MurielMary (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikimedia User Group of Aotearoa New Zealand

Hi all, I'd like to announce that Wikimedia User Group of Aotearoa New Zealand has been approved. I reckon that most of you noticed but I'm writing here anyway just in case some of you haven't. Feel free to put your name down if you want to support this initiative. Regards, Podzemnik (talk) 02:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC on macrons

Interested editors may wish to comment.

Should the New Zealand naming conventions be amended to allow the use of macrons for articles written in New Zealand English?

Details at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand). Schwede66 23:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

WP-macrons in media: [1][2] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

New Zealand Architecture Awards

Hi, I've added New Zealand Architecture Award and New Zealand Architecture Awards as redirects to the New Zealand Institute of Architects, and added a section heading to point to. That said, I feel there could be more of a fuss made about them; could they have their own page? — Jon (talk) 07:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Jon, the way it goes is as follows: have a look around for sources. If you find enough that can demonstrate WP:GNG then write an article. If you aren't sure, write the article in draft space and ask others for their opinion. Schwede66 18:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd say: (a) they can have their own article (no hurry, build the section up and then the section can be moved to a new article, see NZIA Gold Medal for ideas what it might look like) (b) the winners can have their own category. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Urbanity and Rurality and Something Missing

Someone has suavely set up a stack of categories for New Zealanders but only those from cities or towns. Where does someone like this fit? (rurality is a real word, they use it in America). Eddaido (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Coming from outside, it looks like he could be added to Category:Rugby union players from Masterton‎ (based on his birthplace in the infobox). It's not obvious to me why Category:Rugby union players by city or town in New Zealand does not appear to be under Category:Rugby union players in New Zealand. I don't watch sportspeople categories often enoguh to know what is "normal" anywhere else. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

If you pick up my link to NZHistory it says he's from the Wairarapa and is Wairarapa born and bred. True Masterton is in the Wairarapa but the people from Masterton would see themselves as better than the people in the country districts and vice versa. They have different self-images. I'm sure this applies all around the country (but I'll skip trying a Dad-joke on that one).

Sorry about the delay, there's been a slip up, a copy of Lochore biography has been re-ordered. In the meantime see WP:COPDEF more particularly Categorization - the place of birth "The place of birth, although it may be significant from the perspective of local studies, is rarely defining from the perspective of an individual." Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 10:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Lochore, An Authorised Biography as told to Alex Veysey, Gary Cafell and Ron Palenski published 25 years ago sees Brian Lochore to be from the Wairarapa Not Masterton. I'm going to assume that WP editors and perhaps their readers know this is no longer true in today's minds and there I will let the matter rest. Until the next time it comes up of course. Eddaido (talk) 08:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move

A requested move at Talk:Catherine Bott (footballer) has been reopened and relisted. Your opinion would be greatly appreciated. Please come and help! PI Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 06:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Assistance please with the article Ngāti Pāoa

Hi all,
Please also see this user's contributions and this WP:ANI discussion.
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Demonym in BLPs

Is there a problem with denoting New Zealanders as "New Zealander" in the lede sentence of biographies? It seems the common usage is "New Zealand", which is poor grammar! And not consistent with other demonyms. Elizium23 (talk) 04:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

"New Zealander" is the correct demonym for someone from New Zealand. However, if you write "Gielen is a New Zealand bishop", then you are using the adjective form, which is "New Zealand". To say "New Zealander bishop" is bad grammar. Many demonyms are identical to their associated adjectives, which may be confusing you. This one is not. "Scot" vs "Scottish" is similar. If you want consistency, you picked the wrong language with English.-gadfium 05:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I've asked a question about this at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Demonyms ending with -er, which might come up with a definitive answer.-gadfium 03:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Added Mokoroa Falls Page

I added a page for Mokoroa falls here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mokoroa_falls (Interesting009 (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC))

Added references and sources to New Zealand International Film Festival

Added references and sources to New Zealand International Film Festival: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_International_Film_Festival . Removed: "This article does not cite any sources..." from the top of the article. (Interesting009 (talk) 05:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC))

Water cycle and climate change

Kia ora,

Walter Jehne, an Australian climate scientist and microbiologist was recently in the country. A key message was that CO2 accounts for 4% of the heat dynamics of the planet. The water cycle accounts for 94%, so gives us a much bigger lever to work with. When I look at Wikipedia's climate page it only has a couple of paragraphs on the water cycle. I would like to write something, but I don't have the science credentials. Any suggestions?PeterBruce-Iri (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would be a good idea, especially if you're not familiar with climate science. If you're going to wade in, be prepared for disappointment, and read Skeptical Science articles on the topics first, for example the "water vapour is stronger than CO₂" claim. Jehne has some interesting useful strategies that amount to pulling water vapour out of the atmosphere, that we should all be doing anyway, but I'm not sure his justifications are quite right. Humidity is a function of temperature, not the other way around, and it's the increased CO₂ that's always going to be the problem since although water vapour has a stronger effect, it has a very short cycle time, a matter of hours or days, whereas that of CO₂ is measured in decades. This makes elevated CO₂ a very bad problem to have. Jehne doesn't help himself by misquoting and misrepresenting the 1967 Manabe & Wetherald paper, either. A doubling of CO₂ from 300 ppm to 600 ppm would increase the temperature by "about 2°C" (it's right there in the abstract), not 0.3°C as he claims. Jon (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Personnel files from Archives New Zealand

Someone is uploading military personnel files to Commons from Archives New Zealand. Is this appropriate? Eddaido (talk) 11:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The files are available online at the National Library of New Zealand, so the upload to commons is not a breach of privacy. However, the National Library has a copyright notice and a Terms of Use which prohibits use for other than personal research, which is incompatible with the CC-BY licence these files were uploaded to Commons with. It may be that the National Library copyright notice is invalid because these files are too old, but in that case a notice that copyright has expired in New Zealand is required. I suggest you raise the issue on Commons.-gadfium 21:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

According to https://www.archives.govt.nz/copyright:

In cases where we have already published archival material on the archives.govt.nz website or have made it digitally available on Archway, it is covered by a Creative Commons BY 2.0 license, unless otherwise stated. You are then welcome to use it without seeking permission.

The personnel files that have been uploaded are indeed digitally available on Archway, so that should be OK? Paora (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks both. My question was more in the spirit of "we all know he must have a personnel file in there somewhere (in the National Archives) but do we Really need to have a photo of it on his WP biography?" Its "appropriateness" that bothers me. I know access is easy and I may have put in live links to the same sources for biographies I've attempted to embellish. Its the raw data being pushed at me on the WP page that makes me feel uncomfortable. Maybe I'm over-sensitive. Eddaido (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm a little late to this dicussion, but it's important to realise that these are primary sources and need to be treated with extreme caution. For an example, Archibald Baxter is an individual whose military history records are unlikely to paint a true account of this time in his life. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

2018 demographics

I propose to add 2018 census data to articles on New Zealand locations using a script I have written. The script reads data from comma-separated files provided for download from https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-releases/statistical-area-1-dataset-for-2018-census-updated-march-2020 and creates mediawiki markup, which I will manually paste into the articles and check for any errors. The data will replace the 2013 census data which I placed in some articles earlier using a variant of this script.

The script is capable of combining multiple area units. Can I have some feedback on the result before I start adding this to articles. I append results for Ahipara, a small town corresponding to a single area unit, and Kaitaia, a larger town corresponding to two area units. For Ahipara, the script reports the median income, but for Kaitaia this is omitted because I cannot combine the median values of multiple lists and get a meaningful result.

The data I'm using will not be the same as earlier data for the 2013 and 2006 censuses because the 2018 data reinterprets area boundaries.

Are there additional items of information that I should be adding? The raw data covers the last three censuses, but I've only included earlier data for total population. Can my wording be improved? I think it's rather dull at present. Is the population from the last three censuses best given in text, as a table, or both as in the examples? Should I link to the 2006 New Zealand census and 2013 New Zealand census articles?

Statistics New Zealand also present the information they feel is most relevant in a nicely-formatted way. See https://www.stats.govt.nz/tools/2018-census-place-summaries/ahipara for an example. This appears to replace the "Quickstats about a place" from the 2013 and 2006 censuses. The data used in the 2018 census place summaries differs slightly from the data I have; they probably used a slightly earlier version. I don't propose to get nearly as fancy as their site, and I don't think we need to provide quite as much of the data. Statistics New Zealand doesn't provide a similar page for Kaitaia, only for the individual area units of Kaitaia East and Kaitaia West.

The script uses a template for the reference, so if the website url changes it can be updated in one place rather than in many articles.

Please add your comments in the discussion section below the examples.-gadfium 04:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Demographics (Ahipara)

Year	Population
2006	1,095
2013	1,032
2018	1,230

Ahipara had a population of 1,230 at the 2018 New Zealand census, an increase of 198 people since the 2013 census, and an increase of 135 people since the 2006 census. There were 597 males and 636 females. There were 390 households. 270 people were aged up to 15 years, 204 were 15-29, 564 were 30-64, and 195 were 65 or older. Figures may have been rounded and may not add up to the total.

60.7% were European/Pākehā, 61.2% were Māori, 5.9% were Pacific peoples, 2.0% were Asian, and 2.2% were other ethnicities. People may have more than one nationality.

156 people have a bachelor or higher degree. The median income was $23,600. 381 people were employed fulltime, 147 were parttime, and 78 were unemployed.

Demographics (Kaitaia)

Year	Population
2006	5,202
2013	4,887
2018	5,871

Kaitaia had a population of 5,871 at the 2018 New Zealand census, an increase of 984 people since the 2013 census, and an increase of 669 people since the 2006 census. There were 2,799 males and 3,072 females. There were 1,881 households. 1,590 people were aged up to 15 years, 1,179 were 15-29, 2,196 were 30-64, and 909 were 65 or older. Figures may have been rounded and may not add up to the total.

49.9% were European/Pākehā, 65.9% were Māori, 7.9% were Pacific peoples, 5.2% were Asian, and 1.2% were other ethnicities. People may have more than one nationality.

348 people have a bachelor or higher degree. 1,452 people were employed fulltime, 531 were parttime, and 483 were unemployed.

Demographics (Canterbury District Health Board)

Year	Population
2006	467,016
2013	482,778
2018	539,631

Canterbury DHB had a population of 539,631 at the 2018 New Zealand census, an increase of 56,853 people since the 2013 census, and an increase of 72,615 people since the 2006 census. There were 269,550 males and 270,081 females. There were 200,694 households. Of the total population, 98,541 people were aged up to 15 years, 111,957 were 15 to 29, 246,159 were 30 to 64, and 82,968 were 65 or older. Figures may have been rounded and may not add up to the total.

Ethnicities were 81.6% European/Pākehā, 9.5% Māori, 3.3% Pacific peoples, 11.8% Asian, and 2.7% other ethnicities. People may have more than one nationality.

In education, 98,127 people had a bachelor or higher degree, and 75,732 people over the age of 15 had no formal qualifications. The median income was $34,200. The employment status was that 226,362 people were employed fulltime, 68,367 were parttime, and 14,703 were unemployed.

Demographics (Waitemata and Gulf Ward)

Historical population

Year	Pop.	±% p.a.
2006	71,619	—
2013	86,415	+2.72%
2018	92,865	+1.45%
Source:

Waitemata and Gulf Ward had a population of 92,865 at the 2018 New Zealand census, an increase of 6,450 people (7.5%) since the 2013 census, and an increase of 21,246 people (29.7%) since the 2006 census. There were 38,712 households. There were 46,767 males and 46,101 females, giving a sex ratio of 1.01 males per female. Of the total population, 9,390 people (10.1%) were aged up to 15 years, 31,755 (34.2%) were 15 to 29, 43,053 (46.4%) were 30 to 64, and 8,667 (9.3%) were 65 or older. Figures may not add up to the total due to rounding.

Ethnicities were 63.4% European/Pākehā, 6.7% Māori, 4.8% Pacific peoples, 28.5% Asian, and 5.6% other ethnicities. People may identify with more than one ethnicity.

Although some people objected to giving their religion, 55.0% had no religion, 27.9% were Christian, and 12.1% had other religions.

In education, 37,311 people had a bachelor or higher degree, and 4,566 people over the age of 15 had no formal qualifications. The median income was $38,600. The employment status was that 45,783 people were employed fulltime, 13,071 were parttime, and 3,450 were unemployed.

References

Discussion

I have since used the script to update Grey District, as the population section there had very old data. The final line of the section is not from the script; I manually adapted it from the earlier content.-gadfium 01:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I haven't had any feedback, so I'll start using my script later today. For a list of the articles which use the script, see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:NZ census 2018.-gadfium 21:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• This is awesome! To respond to your questions: yes, you should link the 2006 and 2013 census articles. I'd give population data both as prose and in a table (different people take in information in different ways). You need to use endashes for the year ranges as per MOS:RANGE but perhaps it should even read "204 were 15 to 29, 564 were 30 to 64, ..." to be in strict compliance with the Manual of Style. Schwede66 21:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, agree it's great! Another point: as per MOS:NUMNOTES, you should revise the prose to avoid starting a sentence with a figure if possible. Paora (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I've added 'to' between ages, linked to the earlier censuses (although there's no article on the 2006 census) and reworded sentences to avoid starting with a number. I also added the number of people without formal qualifications to balance the number with a degree. I'd welcome any suggestions for better flowing wording. The example is Canterbury DHB, above. I haven't altered my earlier examples.-gadfium 04:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I should say "75,732 people aged at least 15 had no formal qualifications", or is it clear in context that this includes 15 year olds? The census field is called "Census_2018_Highest_qualification_000_No_qualification_CURP_15years_and_over".-gadfium 04:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Cool. That there isn't a 2006 census article yet isn't a problem; at some point, there will be one. I'm curious about the CDHB example as in the text, you talk about "Canterbury" when you would need to talk about "the area covered by the CDHB". The DHB boundaries don't necessarily align with regional boundaries. For a start, we have the South Canterbury District Health Board (covering the area around Timaru). Some of the DHB boundaries are outright weird. Schwede66 04:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The script takes a name out of the census data, but this sometimes lacks context, and if the script is combining multiple areas it just takes the name of the first area, which is enough for me to see it's got the right records but usually needs editing. I manually edited the example to say "Canterbury DHB" after initially posting it, but saying "The area covered by..." would have been an improvement. I chose a DHB for the example because it has a much higher population than the other examples, and might be a body that many people wouldn't realise had explicit census coverage.-gadfium 05:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Further development of the script, thanks to @Lcmortensen: for editing the output at Marlborough Region. The changes are:

1. Use the {{historical populations}} template to show the table, which adds the per annum changes.
2. Add a name for the reference, so it can easily be reused.
3. Include percentages for the population changes and for the age ranges.
4. Include the ratio of males to females.
5. Tweak the wording of "Figures may not add up to the total due to rounding." and "People may identify with more than one ethnicity."
6. Include religious adherence. For most places, the numbers who have no religion, or are Christians, dominate, making up over 90% of those who answered the census question, and no more than 3% belonging to any other religion. The example above has a higher number of "other religions" than most areas, but the largest of the other religions is still less than 4.5%.

The latest example, for Waitamata and Gulf Ward, is above. Always happy to consider other changes.-gadfium 03:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I was going to suggest the changes here, but I decided to edit Marlborough Region first to see how it looked. I added percentages since raw numbers are a bit hard for the mind to understand. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 06:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Shall I add percentages to the education and employment paragraph too?-gadfium 06:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

It may be good to have them as percentages. After all, we talk about there potentially being 10% unemployment due to COVID-19.Lcmortensen (mailbox) 22:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I presume the percentages for both education and employment should use as the total the number of people aged over 15, as that's what the census is measuring. Eg the no qualification number is described as Census_2018_Highest_qualification_000_No_qualification_CURP_15years_and_over. My percentage calculation will be Number_displayed * 100 / (Total_population - Age_under_15), and I'll change the start of the paragraph to say "For those over 15 ...."-gadfium 02:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I've now added the script output to the articles on the South Island regions. Use the link near the top of this section to see which articles contain its output. The script takes a second or two to run for each area, pasting the result into Wikipedia would take a few minutes, but integrating it into existing content can take quite some time when the article already has detailed older demographic information, as most of the region articles do. I'm quite happy to repeat the process with the region articles if further improvements are suggested, but once I get into the dozens of articles I'll be a bit more reluctant to repeat the earlier work.-gadfium 04:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I've updated the North Island region articles. For Northland Region, I updated the existing table of Ethnic groups of Northland residents to cover 2006-18 census data, which took quite a lot of effort because I did it by hand. Several other articles have similar tables, and I have left those alone for now. I noticed that Lcmortensen updated the table in Canterbury, New Zealand. @Lcmortensen:, if you have a script to automate this, let me know and I'll leave it to you (or you can send me a copy of your script), otherwise I might write a script to generate these tables sometime in the non-immediate future. In general, I have removed 2006 data from these articles as being too old to be useful, and I have kept 2013 data unless the 2018 data is a reasonable replacement for it.

On Bay of Plenty, I manually updated a paragraph about the number of people born overseas and the number speaking Māori. If the number of people born overseas and the number who speak Māori are considered worth-while statistics to add to my script, I can do that easily. Any other data items I should add?-gadfium 04:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The tables are another way of expressing ethnicity, but I think it will be better to delete most of them and express it as prose per Gadfium's script. The regional articles and some of the larger cities may justify the timeline-like table as seen at Canterbury, New Zealand, but I think it will be easier to do manually.

The number of people who were born overseas is a worth-while statistic. For example, Auckland and Queenstown-Lakes have more than 40% of their populations born overseas. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 06:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Gadfium: Just so you know, we have now a complete set of DHB articles. Schwede66 21:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I've added demographics to each of those, apart from the historical articles, and for Northland, Tairawhiti and West Coast DHBs, the numbers were identical to the corresponding region, so I didn't think it appropriate to duplicate them. I left MidCentral alone as you'd already done a decent job of adding demographics. For South Canterbury, I added my content but it could be better integrated with yours. For Taranaki and Hawke's Bay, the numbers were very close to the numbers for the regions, but not identical, so I added them. Presumably the boundaries were once identical but some small areas have moved between regions.-gadfium 00:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Further minor improvements to the script, thanks to @Lcmortensen: for editing the output at Lower Hutt. I've added the median age (only when a single statistical area is used), and tweaked the wording in a few places. I am not planning to go back and change the 185 previous runs of the script, but the improvements will apply to all articles I run it for from now on, and the script will be the basis for future census results. You can see the new output at Tapora, and compare with the old at Wellsford.-gadfium 04:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

There was an error in the original SA1 dataset which caused the median age to be suppressed. Stats NZ released the updated version on 28 April 2020, which was after the first version of the script was released. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 06:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Related question

I note that there are a large number of Foo District articles missing, i.e. those territorial authorities that are districts: Rotorua Lakes, Whakatāne District, Kawerau District, Ōpōtiki District, Wairoa District, Hastings District, Stratford District, New Zealand, Masterton District, Carterton District, Ashburton District

The situation is even worse for Foo City, as it applies to a higher proportion of city articles: Hamilton City, New Zealand, Tauranga City (which is a dab page), Napier City, Palmerston North City, Porirua City, Upper Hutt City, Hutt City, Invercargill City

In some cases, we have Foo City Council articles that cover the territorial (or unitary) authority, and to me the question is whether, for consistency, they should be at Foo City: Wellington City Council, Nelson City Council, Christchurch City Council, Dunedin City Council. That said, I note we have separate articles for Taupo: Taupo District and Taupo District Council.

My thoughts are:

• We should make a concerted effort to get the missing district articles, with the demographics data a good base that can be added to.
• We should decide whether "Council" should or should not be part of the article name, and then be consistent across all territorial authorities.
• We should get the remaining city articles set up; this would mostly be by splitting content off.

Your thoughts would be welcome. Schwede66 22:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking I would create the various missing District articles as I work my way down the country, but I expect that will take me a few years as I intend to create articles on localities as necessary, e.g. Kapiro.-gadfium 23:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok. In that case, I might beat you to it. Schwede66 21:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Some thoughts off the top of my head:

I think it is fine to have both an article for the TA area (e.g. Taupo District) and another for the council (e.g. Taupo District Council). But where articles currently don't have enough content for two such articles, I would make the article title for the area, and include any council info in that article. Later, when content about the council warrants a separate article, it can be created.

In some cases I'm not sure that we need a "City" article in addition to the existing article that has a title omitting "City". For example, Hamilton City covers more-or-less the same area as the Hamilton, New Zealand article. So maybe it's fine to just retain such articles under their current names, with the article making it clear that it covers the formal City as well. (Per my previous paragraph, there is also the option of a City Council article when the amount of content warrants it. E.g. we have Nelson, New Zealand and Nelson City Council, with no need for a Nelson City, New Zealand, except as a redirect.)

The biggest needs are the creation of certain district articles. It has always seemed odd to me that Hastings District is covered by Hastings, New Zealand, which I would expect to be about only the city of Hastings, not the vast, mostly rural District. Nurg (talk) 03:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Some progress update. It turns out that there is a complete set of entries for foo district and foo city on Wikidata (one foo city entry was missing but I've fixed that). Next, I've gone through Commons and created category entries for all foo districts (several dozen were missing). Then, I rationalised the Wikidata links, with some links to the main entry and others with a link to Wikimedia category (Q4167836); they are all linked to the main entry now. I'm not sure whether me changing the latter causes any issues (if so, please be in touch). In working with the Wikidata entries, I spotted that the German Wikipedia has (slightly) more articles on our districts than we do, and often with more content. Crikey! Anyway, I'll write some of the missing articles when I get round to it. Schwede66 08:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I did a lot of work on these last year in Wikidata, making sure there was an item for each district and region, and splitting the territorial authority/council items from the district items. What was the missing one? If it was Porirua (I saw you created a council item Porirua City (Q94169870)), there was already an item for the TA (Porirua City Council (Q73439814)), so I converted it into a district (as there was one for the city and one for the council, but not one for the district). --Canley (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I was amazed at the Wikidata quality. It's your good work; now I understand. Yes, it was Porirua (and technically, Rotorua also used to be a city I learned yesterday). Schwede66 03:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Meshblocks

The change of statistical areas from earlier censuses mean we do not have a reasonably current population for many of the small towns that were covered by the 2013 census, for example Te Kōpuru. I will update these using meshblock data, but I am not aware of a source for populations by meshblock at the time of the 2018 census. I can find 2020 populations, and will use those if someone can assure me that an "electoral population" (divided between general and Māori elctorates) is the same as total population, rather than the number of eligible voters. Is there a better reference to use than the map I linked to above?-gadfium 23:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the meshblocks around Te Kōpuru, I see that a couple of them have -999 as the Māori Electoral Population. One such is 0125100. Perhaps this is a code to mean there are no such electors in that meshblock, as 0 mean be construed to mean "no data". Is this explained anywhere? There's a .csv file available of these meshblocks with 2020 population at [3]

"−999" means the population value is suppressed because it is less than 6. I would expect "electoral population" to mean registered electors, but according to the Electoral Act 1993: "General electoral population means total ordinarily resident population as shown in the last periodical census of population and dwellings with the exception of the Maori electoral population"—however would that mean the Māori electoral population is based on the electoral roll? --Canley (talk) 02:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful. The meshblock data gives two population figures, General_Electoral_Population and Maori_Electoral_Population, so I can add those together to get a total population, and I'll normally be dealing with multiple meshblocks to fit a locality, so excluding the numbers less than 6 won't be a big problem. I'll note that the population is approximate where -999 is in the mix.-gadfium 03:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

50,000 Destubbing Challenge Focus of the Week

Hello there. This is an invitation to join the 50,000 Destubbing Challenge Focus of the Week. £250 (c. $310) is being given away in May, June and July with £20 worth of prizes to give away every week for most articles destubbed. Each week there is a different region of focus, including the last week dedicated to NZ and Oceania, though half the prize will still be rewarded for articles on any subject. There's a potential £120 to be won in total for destubbing on any subject or region of your choice. Sign up if you want to contribute at least one of the weeks or support the idea! † Encyclopædius 12:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Seeking helpers - Water and irrigation in New Zealand

It is surprising that there is currently no article on Irrigation in New Zealand, given how important irrigation is to agriculture, the large scale of investment, and the controversies associated with many schemes. (There is a [Category:Irrigation in New Zealand] but no article). Further, the top level article about water, Water in New Zealand is not well developed. I have put more detailed comments on the talk page Talk:Water in New Zealand.

I am interested in working on these topics but it is a big project and it would be great to have one or two others to share ideas and develop content. Please get in touch if you would like to contribute. Marshelec (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Missing/broken references

I'm trying to make a dent in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors, and a few articles within the NZ sphere have issues that I can't fix on my own (~2549 issue as of writing). Basically, some refs linked via {{sfn}} and {{harvnb}} and similar have missing full citations or have some other problems. You can check these instructions to have error messages enabled (Svick's script is the simplest to use, but Trappist's script is a bit more refined if you're interested in doing deeper cleanup).

In particular, the following articles could use some of your attention

• 22nd New Zealand Parliament missing Scholefield 1950
• 24th New Zealand Parliament missing McRobie 1989
• 35th New Zealand Parliament missing Norton 1988, Gustafson 1986
• 37th New Zealand Parliament missing Norton 1988
• 39th New Zealand Parliament missing Norton 1988
• 41st New Zealand Parliament missing Gustafson 1986

Also

• 1853 New Zealand general election - The reference is to Wilson 1984, but the listed work is Wilson 1985. Possibly a typo, or a different work by the same author.
• 1855 New Zealand general election - As above
• 1866 New Zealand general election
• 1893 New Zealand general election - The reference is to Brooking 1989, but the listed work is Brooking 1988. The work was added in the same edit as the sfn, so I am confident they refer to the same book.
• 1908 New Zealand general election
• 1912 New Zealand Liberal Party leadership election
• 1931 New Zealand general election
• 1974 New Zealand Labour Party leadership election
• 1978 New Zealand general election
• 1980 New Zealand Labour Party leadership election
• 1987 New Zealand general election

and

• 1981 South Africa rugby union tour of New Zealand and the United States

The cause is often copy-pasting a short reference from another article without copy-pasting the full reference. If you can find where things were copy-pasted from, you can usually find what the full reference is.

Thanks for any help you can give! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I have struck out the ones I have fixed (or at least, the red errors from Svick's script no longer appear). I looked for the referenced works from the 1893 and 1974 elections but couldn't find them in similar articles.-gadfium 20:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I've now done all that I can do. The remaining three might be typos in the year, but people who are more familiar with these references are better suited to fixing them.-gadfium 21:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Wilson 1985 is correct; see d:Q20483210 (the confusion must have arisen as Wilson covers the period until 1984). Schwede66 23:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Also

• 1885 Oamaru by-election
• 1887 Invercargill mayoral by-election
• 1888 Ashley by-election - references Scholefield 1940, presumably means Scholefield, Guy (1950) [First ed. published 1913]. New Zealand Parliamentary Record, 1840–1949 (3rd ed.). Wellington: Govt. Printer. but gets the year wrong. Note that the second edition of this book was 1925, no version was published in 1940 as far as I can tell.

• There have been four editions of New Zealand Parliamentary Record and the third one came out in 1950. See the Wikidata entry. Note that I have editions 3 and 4, so if anybody needs something confirmed/looked up, please ping me. That said, Scholefield 1940 will refer to Dictionary of New Zealand Biography (1940). That work has been digitised and is freely available; I shall add the external links (split into two books) to the article. Schwede66 10:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• 1898 City of Wellington by-election
• 1899 City of Wellington by-election
• 1925 Franklin by-election
• 1927 Raglan by-election
• 1935 Wellington City mayoral election
• 1965 Wellington City mayoral election
• 1977 Mangere by-election
• 1979 Christchurch Central by-election

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Done the easy ones of this second set.-gadfium 03:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Here's another one, on top of the above two (in bold) that still needs doing:

• 1865 Town of New Plymouth by-election - references McIntyre 1980, can't find any likely candidates. @Schwede66:, you added this, presumably it refers to "The Journal of Henry Sewell 1853-57", though that seems too early as the reference is for 1860 or 1861.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah, sorry. My stuff up. It's that book; it's in the last chapter called "Aftermath". That's why it's outside of the year range that the book title talks about. Schwede66 10:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Marutūāhu

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marut%C5%AB%C4%81hu

"The Marutūāhu tribes are descended from Marutūāhu, a son of Hotunui, who is said to have arrived in New Zealand on the Tainui canoe"

This is incorrect. Marutuahu was the son of Hotunui (II) who lived 9 generations after Hotunui (I).

Te Rangikaiwhiria Kemara — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.227.146.109 (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The source for the content at Marutūāhu might be Polynesian Mythology and Ancient Traditional History of the New Zealand Race: The Story of Maru-Tuahu, the Son of Hotunui, and of Kahurere-Moa, the Daughter of Paka by Sir George Grey, 1885.

A source suggesting Hotunui was a later person is Story: Marutūahu tribes in Te Ara, which uses as one of its sources Graham, George. ‘Marutuahu.’ Journal of the Polynesian Society 50 (1941)

I also found an oral history interview recorded in 1946 by the NBS Mobile Unit which supports Hotunui being a later person.

Do you have any source which shows the later Hotunui as being a descendant of the voyager Hotunui?-gadfium 22:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we may possibly have a conflict here between the oral histories of Tainui and of the Marutūāhu peoples. (Oral histories don’t necessarily agree on details like this, nor should we expect them to). According to some MT sources, Hotunui was the captain of the Tainui, and the father of MT. Whereas the Tainui version seems to be that Hoturoa (not Hotunui) was the captain and that Hotunui was later. Just sayin’. Piwaiwaka (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

This discussion can be moved to Talk:Marutūāhu once it is concluded

Living New Zealand dames and knights

I'm currently working towards this article in my sandbox, based on Living Australian knights and dames (I thought we'd list the ladies first in the title as per the manners my mother had taught me) but we can probably have a column for photos, too. My intention is to compile the complete list from Wikidata, and I have the following workplan:

• go through the various honours lists, back to about 1970 (an Australian who was knighted in 1972 is still alive)
• create red links for those where there isn't a link yet; determine the WP:COMMONNAME
• see whether there are photos on Commons; if yes create a commons category and if not, see whether there are photos on the governors-general website (which are freely licensed)
• link the commons category to Wikidata
• amend (or create) the Wikidata entry, with the critical items:

• the relevant award (d:Property:P166)
• date of death (d:Property:P570)
• New Zealand as country of citizenship (d:Property:P27)

New Year Honours

• 1968
• 1969
• 1970
• 1971
• 1972
• 1973
• 1974
• 1975
• 1976
• 1977
• 1978
• 1979
• 1980
• 1981
• 1982
• 1983
• 1984
• 1985
• 1986
• 1987
• 1988
• 1989
• 1990
• 1991
• 1992
• 1993
• 1994
• 1995
• 1996
• 1997
• 1998
• 1999
• 2000
• 2001
• 2002
• 2003
• 2004
• 2005
• 2006
• 2007
• 2008
• 2009
• 2010
• 2011
• 2012
• 2013
• 2014
• 2015
• 2016
• 2017
• 2018
• 2019
• 2020

Birthday Honours

• 1968
• 1969
• 1970
• 1971
• 1972
• 1973
• 1974
• 1975
• 1976
• 1977
• 1978
• 1979
• 1980
• 1981
• 1982
• 1983
• 1984
• 1985
• 1986
• 1987
• 1988
• 1989
• 1990
• 1991
• 1992
• 1993
• 1994
• 1995
• 1996
• 1997
• 1998
• 1999
• 2000
• 2001
• 2002
• 2003
• 2004
• 2005
• 2006
• 2007
• 2008
• 2009
• 2010
• 2011
• 2012
• 2013
• 2014
• 2015
• 2016
• 2017
• 2018
• 2019
• 2020

Special Honours

• 1974
• 1975
• 1977
• 1978
• 1980
• 1981
• 1985
• 1989
• 1990
• 1996
• 2001
• 2006
• 2007
• 2009
• 2011
• 2016
• 2019

Jubilee Honours

• 1977 (Silver jubilee)
• 2002 (Golden jubilee)
• 2012 (Diamond jubilee)

Royal Visit Honours

• 1981
• 1986
• 1990
• 1995
• 2002

Note that receiving a regular honour confirms that the recipient is a New Zealand citizen. Non-citizens are eligible for honorary awards only. Feel free to chip in if you wish and if you do, please note progress in the worklist. Paora, given that you do most of the (rather valuable) work on the award lists you'll get a ping; I'm sure you'll be interested in this project. Schwede66 20:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I've done many of the Australian lists and associated Wikidata work, so happy to help if needed. --Canley (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Correction - citizens of other Commonwealth countries where the Queen is head of state (e.g. UK, Canada, Australia) are also eligible for ordinary awards (see https://dpmc.govt.nz/our-programmes/new-zealand-royal-honours/new-zealand-royal-honours-system/components-new-zealand-0]). I should note the investiture ceremonies of the 2020 New Years Honours recipents have been delayed due to COVID-19, so their photos aren't available. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 00:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

How interesting; that is in direct contradiction to what it says in the nomination form under the heading "Non-New Zealand Citizens", where it states: "Non-New Zealanders are eligible for honorary awards." Schwede66 01:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Lcmortensen is correct. For example, Neville Wran, an Australian, got a substantive CNZM in the 2010 New Year Honours. It's probably not necessary to go back quite so far in compiling the list: I've had a look at the Air New Zealand Almanac from 1988, edited by Max Lambert, which gives a list of living New Zealand knights and dames as of 30 June 1988, and going through the list the earliest recipient of a knighthood or damehood still living today appears to be Miriam Dell, who received her honour in the 1980 New Year Honours. And yes, happy to help out on the project. Paora (talk) 04:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

That's awesome! Thanks. Schwede66 06:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Here's a quick and dirty SPARQL query attempting to get what you are after – there's a lot of assumptions so feel free to suggest or make any refinements: that the dame/knighthood titles are a subclass of knight/dame, and that they have New Zealand citizenship on their Wikidata item, and that they are still alive if there is no date of death on Wikidata. --Canley (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

That's exactly what we need and aligns with my thinking. Get this right on Wikidata and that'll give us a list. What you could do is to add a few things to the output and eventually, exporting that to CSV can be the input for a list entry:

• gender (so that we can differentiate between dames and knights)
• image (if we want to proceed with adding images to the tables)
• surname (if we want to have the lists sorted by surname)

Thanks heaps! Schwede66 01:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Here's a query with gender, images and family names (some surnames are missing Wikidata items though, but I can add these). I'd like to add the "point in time" qualifier so it will include the year granted, but I'll need to think about that as querying qualifiers is a bit complicated. There's some non-Commonwealth honours like Knight of the Order of Saint John, Chevalier des Arts et des Lettres, German Cross of the Order of Merit, not sure if you want to include these or not. --Canley (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

That's grand; thank you! I've fixed the missing surnames. With regards to inclusion, what the Australians suggest is that it should be part of orders, decorations, and medals of the United Kingdom. If we adopt that also, then the Knight of the Order of Saint John is in and the other two are not. That works for me, but what do others think? Schwede66 10:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

My feeling is that Knights and Dames of the Order of St John should not be included, as the accolade does not confer a title of "Sir" or "Dame", and it is essentially an award for members of a particular organisation, rather than being available to everyone. I would also argue that Knights and Dames of the Order of St John are not inherently notable, whereas holders of substantive knighthoods and damehoods are. I agree that the other various French, German, Papal etc titles ought not be included.
In terms of what should be included in the table, I'd suggest something similar to the list of members of the Order of New Zealand or the Order of Merit:

Name	Portrait	Honour	Date of appointment	Known for	Present age
Dame Miriam Dell ONZ DBE JP		Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire	31 December 1979	Women's welfare	100
Sir Michael Fowler		Knight Bachelor	13 June 1981	Mayor of Wellington (1974–1983)	94

Include some sorting capability, and no need to include gender, as Dame and Knight essentially does this. The few Principal Companions and Distinguished Companions still living who did not convert to Knight / Dame Grand Companion or Knight / Dame Companion are listed already at New Zealand Order of Merit, and would not be included in the new table (unless they have other qualifying honours, such as Dame Silvia Cartwright). Paora (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Table looks good. Yes to sorting. I wasn't aware of the finer details of the Order of Saint John but what you say makes sense to me (i.e. leave them out). To my mind, the Principal and Distinguished Companions are equivalent to dame or knighthoods and for completeness, we should list them here, even if that doubles up on a list elsewhere. If we didn't include them, it would mean that interested readers have to combine two lists to get the complete picture. If we agree on their inclusion, then gender does make sense as the gong isn't gender-specific. Schwede66 02:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

You are right that the Principal and Distinguished Companions are equal in rank to Knights / Dames Grand Companion and Knights / Dames Companion, but they specifically chose not to convert to a knighthood or damehood. For example, Sam Neill said at the time that he rejected a knighthood because the idea of a title was "just far too grand, by far"; Joy Cowley said that she values her "ordinariness"; and others expressed similar sentiments.[4] So, I think that to include people who explicity declined knighthoods or damehoods in a list of knights and dames would be wrong. I'd be happy with a second table on the new page, or a link to the existing table, rather than integrating everyone into a single table. Paora (talk) 09:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, that's a good enough argument for me. We should discuss that in the article's prose and link to the relevant article. Thanks for all your good thoughts on this. Schwede66 00:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Not long before the background work is done. Exciting; great teamwork! I've written the article itself in my sandbox. Mr Canley, you mentioned the other day that you could produce the table directly from Wikidata. Can you please elaborate how that would work? Also, somebody mentioned to me the other months (can't remember who) that tables produced by Wikidata are a no-no in mainspace; is that true or do you know anything about that? Schwede66 01:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

What we were talking about was Listeria which is a bot/tool which can produce a Wikitable list from a Wikidata query (and regularly update it automatically). My experience in this has been from working on the lists of heritage sites/monuments in Australia for the Wiki Loves Monuments competitions, so I set up a ListeriaBot query for each of the Australian states and territories, for example: commons:Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2019 in Australia/List of Australian heritage sites/List of Australian heritage sites in Victoria/1. Unfortunately, as you say, this is one of several very exciting and useful tools and uses of Wikidata which has not gained traction or consensus on English Wikipedia for use in mainspace, and attempts to do so are often reverted quickly – same for Wikidata infoboxes which are widely used on Commons but not on enwiki. Listeria is used for some project pages and reports like Wikipedia:Database reports/Recent deaths and in other language Wikipedias, but there is a hostility to using Wikidata queries for public facing content on enwiki, the rationale being that someone could vandalise Wikidata and it would not appear on WP watchlists so wouldn't be detected or fixed. In this case, the list is not going to update very often although it may be useful to detect and remove recent deaths. There would be no objection I would think to running the bot query in your user space or a project page, and then copying the content to mainspace as wiki markup, but given the size and scope it is probably manageable to generate a list, convert it to a Wikitable list, and then maintain it manually. --Canley (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Hm, it's also not hard to run the Wikidata query above, download the results as a CSV, write equations for each column, and then copy-paste the lot into the page, followed by manual maintenance. Or is it easy enough to do that in Listeria and then use the same to detect changes, Canley? Schwede66 02:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Heads up; I'll now work on the list itself and convert it to a wikitable. Just so that we don't trip over one another. Schwede66 03:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Do we have an order of precedence for the various knight and damehoods? If so, what is it? Schwede66 04:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

New Zealand Honours Order of Precedence. Sorry I missed your question before, yes, I think just work on the list and format it as a table, probably easier than using Listeria for this task. --Canley (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

post-publication discussion

Published! Thanks, team, that was a good combined effort. As you can see, there are two blank columns ("Date of appointment" and "Known for"). These would be most easy to add by getting the records into Wikidata and once that's complete, if Canley could write us a query I'll add that to my spreadsheet that generates the table. If you make any changes to the photos, say, please also update the default photo that Wikidata uses, so that the same info comes through in later queries. Schwede66 21:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, I have rewritten the query to include the date awarded and the citation (I presumed this is what you meant by "known for"?). If they are not in the item they are blank, so this will help work out where the data is missing). --Canley (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I also did a query to see if there were any non-NZ citizens awarded a New Zealand dame/knighthood—only got Julian Robertson who is an American citizen and was given an honorary KNZM. --Canley (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Good job so far! I note that the table is missing appointees to the Royal Victorian Order, e.g. Don McKinnon. Also I think it is problematic listing in terms of "order of precedence", as that has two meanings: i.e. order of wear as suggested in the article at present, and New Zealand order of precedence, which varies over time as appointments to various positions change. In addition, some of those listed are also Members of the Order of New Zealand, which in terms of honours has a higher order of precedence. So I think it might be simpler to list in order of date of appointment. And I agree that "Known for" could be changed to "Citation", the short-form reason for the award given in the honours list. Lastly, there are a number of people listed who have more than one qualifying honour, e.g. Catherine Tizard and Malvina Major, so I think that all they all should be listed:

Name	Portrait	Honour	Date of appointment	Citation	Present age
Dame Catherine Tizard ONZ GCMG GCVO DBE QSO DStJ		Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire	31 December 1984	For public and community service	93
		Dame Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George	27 November 1990	Governor-General Designate
		Dame Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order	1 November 1995	Governor-General of New Zealand

It probably means some additional manual formatting, and may make sorting a problem?

Paora (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I have tweaked the subclasses and filtered out the French and Order of St John honours in this query, so the Royal Victorian Order members (Tizard and McKinnon) should now show up. --Canley (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Right. Maybe we should have discussed this a bit more before I produced the table. Sort order – I'm not set on that. If we do want to have a sortable table, we cannot have more than one line per row. So if we show more than one honour, it has to all sit in the same cell or else sorting won't work any longer. Overall, I think sorting is most useful to have. No trouble with adding who is obviously missing; please go ahead. Schwede66 03:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

So we could do either

Name	Portrait	Honour	Date of appointment	Citation	Present age
Dame Catherine Tizard ONZ GCMG GCVO DBE QSO DStJ		Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire Dame Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George Dame Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order	31 December 1984 27 November 1990 1 November 1995	For public and community service Governor-General Designate Governor-General of New Zealand	93

and sort on the date of the first damehood / knighthood, or we could put each qualifying honour in a separate row. Not too bothered either way, but would probably go for the all-in-one approach above if pushed to choose, so that each person doesn't appear in the table more than once. Paora (talk) 04:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

That table format looks good to me. Schwede66 08:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I've gone through the 1991 edition of Who's Who in New Zealand and pulled out birth dates for everyone who is listed. I don't own the 2001 edition of that book. 31 dames and knights without a known age to go. Schwede66 04:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Found Paul Collins (businessman) in Who's Who in Australia so I've added that. I'll check the others as well... --Canley (talk) 04:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I think I've pulled out all the relevant entries from New Zealand Who's Who Aotearoa 2001. Paora (talk) 10:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Can someone please grade and add this article to the WikiProject?

I have just published Liam Thompson (YouTuber). Everything is sorted (it meets all the requirements I can find) and is backed up with adequate sources. I believe it is suitable for this WikiProject. Thanks, WBPchur ^{💬●✒️●💛} 01:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

You can add any new article to this Wikiproject yourself by adding {{WPNZ}} to the talk page; subsequently somebody will soon come along and do the grading. A cursory look, though, hasn't left me convinced that the chap is notable (I'll have a closer look later). Schwede66 02:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

He has had multiple news articles and has well over 700,000 subscribers on YouTube. He hence meets the general notability requirements put described on WP:Notability. Significant coverage - yes (NZ mainstream media as in citations). Reliable - I would presume so, not really up for a debate about NZ Herald reliability, and the stats definitely are. Secondary and primary sources used. Independent of the subject: yes. If I am missing something please let me know - cheers. WBPchur ^{💬●✒️●💛} 02:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

Pelorus Jack

There's been a discussion on talk:Pelorus Jack about what the occupation of this dolphin should be. I don't believe there's a consensus, but I'd welcome additional input. What, if anything, should the infobox contain if there is no consensus?-gadfium 06:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Too BIG File:New Zealand location map.svg

Its OK when an "article" is just a stub but once there is more than that tis picture very simply gets in the way, big time. In any case its almost as if we have such low regard for our readers we need to hit them over the head with an infant-size image. Can't we do better than this? please. Eddaido (talk) 02:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Eddaido. Because the image is an SVG image, it can be scaled to any size. MOS:IMGSYN has some guidance on setting the size of an image in an article. HenryCrun15 (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to give feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation Brand Project

Kia ora koutou, I'm one of the contact people for the Aotearoa NZ Wikimedia User Group and I've received some information about the WF Brand Project, and also been asked to provide feedback from editors in Aotearoa NZ. Below is a link to the presentation by the Brand Project, and the survey questions that we've been asked to respond to. Please put any comments below and I'll collate and submit in the survey. The deadline is 30 June 2020.

• Presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3zlBGHHHiY
• Survey questions: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Naming_convention_proposals/Survey_text

Thanks in advance! MurielMary (talk) 05:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you MurielMary for acting as the contact.

There is an active RfC at m:Requests for comment/Should the Foundation call itself Wikipedia‎ which at this point has 41 supports and 450 opposes. Despite this very substantial opposition, the three options we are being presented with are "Wikipedia Network", "Wikipedia Movement" and "Wiki + Wikipedia". It appears in m:Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 movement brand project/Executive statement that the WMF is determined to rebrand regardless of community feedback. Accordingly, rather than choose between three unacceptable options, my feedback to WMF is "Don't devalue the good name of Wikipedia, and listen to the community".-gadfium 23:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Gadfium. To update, a significant number of affiliates and individual editors are unhappy with the re-naming process and have written a letter to the Wikimedia Foundation expressing their dissatisfaction. The link is below - you can sign the letter yourself as an individual, or if you believe that the Aotearoa NZ User Group should sign this letter as an affiliate, let's discuss that here too. [[5]] MurielMary (talk) 09:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The census ethinicty data is wrong

On this page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_New_Zealand_census in the ethnicity table, if you add the population of the different ehnic groups, it exceeds the total population. Moreover, if you add up the percentages of each group, you get 120%. The data seems incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.140.122.187 (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

A person can have more than one ethnicity (and can claim more than one on the census). The census data in the source says "Where a person reported more than one ethnic group, they were counted in each applicable group" [my emphasis], which is why the percentages total over 100% and the totals exceed the population. --Canley (talk) 19:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

New Zealand localities

Localities

100% done

   

Suburbs

100% done

   

Discussion

I've tweeted about work that I've done on New Zealand localities (Canterbury and Otago) and one of the outcomes was a desire by Mike to do similar work in the Wairarapa. The aim would be to have:

• a clean set of localities on Wikidata that can form the basis of other work, in particular
• navigation templates for territorial authorities (many are very incomplete, others do not yet exist)

Each Wikidata item should have the following (and if you are challenged by terminology, please see this introduction):

• English label and description
• Instance of should be New Zealand locality or equivalent
• Country set to New Zealand
• located in the administrative territorial entity should mostly point to the territorial local authority (and also the regional council where the TLA falls into more than one region)
• coordinate location should be identified
• New Zealand Gazetteer place ID

Just to avoid confusion, a locality in this context is a place with an entry in the New Zealand Gazetteer that is populated. The way the items ought to be organised should be by territorial authority (i.e. a district or city council) by default, and the regional council should also be identified if the district spans across more than one region (there are only a handful of districts where this applies). Most existing entries are defined by region only and that's not helpful.

To make matters worse, there are two different geographic definitions for regions in use:

• we would all think of a region as the boundaries defined for our 16 regional councils
• Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) has 11 Land Districts and nine of them use the same name as a regional council, but mostly with quite different boundaries

Here's an attempt to explain the differences. What you see from this that you only three regional councils fully fall into the equivalent survey district (Northland, Gisborne, Wellington, and Nelson):

Land Districts	Regional councils	Notes
North Auckland	Northland (all of) & Auckland (most of)	overlaps into Waikato
South Auckland	Waikato (most of) & Bay of Plenty (two thirds of) & Hawke's Bay (a little bit) & Manawatu-Wanganui (a little bit)	very messy boundaries; covers four regions
Gisborne	Gisborne (all of) & Hawke's Bay (a bit) & Bay of Plenty (a third of)	somewhat messy boundaries; covers three regions
Taranaki	Waikato (a little bit) & Taranaki (most of) & Manawatu-Wanganui (some of)	somewhat messy boundaries; covers three regions
Wellington	Manawatu-Wanganui (most of) & Taranaki (a little bit) & Hawke's Bay (a little bit) & Waikato (a little bit) & Wellington (all of)	very messy boundaries; covers five regions
Nelson	Nelson (all of) & Marlborough (some of) & Tasman (all of) & West Coast (some of)	very messy boundaries; covers four regions
Marlborough	Marlborough (most of) & Canterbury (some of)	somewhat messy boundaries; covers two regions
Westland	West Coast (most of) & Southland (a little bit)	somewhat messy boundaries; covers two regions and a huge chunk of the West Coast falls into the Nelson Land District
Canterbury	Canterbury (most of) & Marlborough (a little bit)	reasonably clean, but a large chunk of the Canterbury region falls into the Otago Land District
Otago	Otago (most of) & Canterbury (some of) & Southland (a little bit)	messy boundaries; covers three regions
Southland	Southland (most of) and Otago (a little bit)	most of the Otago / Southland boundary does not match

It would seem that on Wikidata, the current definition of d:Property:P131 (located in the administrative territorial entity) often comes from bot runs that use the LINZ database as the ultimate source for this information. Hence where a locality falls into a different regional council as per the LINZ survey region, the entry is often wrong.

There are no right or wrong ways to go about this but I offer the observation that the Māori Wikipedia has a set of bot-generated stubs for localities that is more extensive than the list of localities on the English Wikipedia. The Wikidata items linked to the Māori WP are often poor; many items have no descriptors at all beyond the article name. And because of the poor data quality, there is often a duplicate Wikidata item for articles in other languages. Hence part of the exercise needs to be that we identify those Wikidata entries that ought to be merged. (to be continued) Schwede66 20:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, you've pretty much nailed all the issues I have encountered doing about a dozen of these a day for several months! The Mix'n'Match for localities is here. I did an analysis a few days ago of how far Wikidata is through the NZ Gazetteer list of localities and put a progress bar at the top of this discussion, so about 32% (1246/3898) of localities on LINZ are linked to Wikidata items. I would like to automate the import to make this process quicker, but the miwiki bot run (and the Cebuano bot to a lesser extent) and the land district issue complicate this a bit, and I quite enjoy using the "human touch" on these. Also two more points: suburbs are in pretty poor shape as well, and some places have old or multiple names which appear in the Mix'n'Match and Gazetteer (I have included both and set to preferred rank if the name is official, but this will appear in the constraint violation reports for the property). --Canley (talk) 23:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

There are 144 that are classed as "human settlement" on Wikidata, so I've added those to the progress bar and will fix them up as localities soon. --Canley (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I have been chipping away at these as a little hobby task since last year, but your interest and work on the same has prompted me to get serious about finishing this, especially as I now realise after all the work that you and I have done we are only about 1/3 complete! The land district issue should be easy to resolve: I have completely ignored the LINZ districts and deliberately excluded them from the Mix'n'Match catalogue because I realised they would be misleading to people working on it. I can also check where the wrong district has been applied — I am using GIS software to match the district to the coordinates, so I can do that for all localities very easily. I have written a query of Wikidata items with sitelinks to the Māori Wikipedia but no statements. I have not tried to match these before—because they have no detail I can't be sure if they are about the locality, or a hill or marae or something else. What I am thinking of doing is scanning the text of the Māori Wikipedia articles for the word "nohanga" or something to better determine if it is the locality—because they are bot-generated they all have the same structure so this should work. Anyway, I'll work on it over the weekend and add updates to this discussion. --Canley (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I just realised an easier way to deal with the miwiki robo-stubs: they are categorised into 16 region categories such as Category:Nohanga o Te Moana-a-Toi – if I apply a parent category, say Category:Nohanga o Aotearoa to each of these, then I can use PetScan to get all the articles nested in that category and their Wikidata item numbers. --Canley (talk) 00:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Ha! Had read this over lunch and came back to it to point out exactly that. Yes, the categorisation should be complete as it was achieved as part of the bot run. And here's a link to that category. Schwede66 02:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Great minds and all that! Here is the PetScan query of the miwiki items and their Wikidata ID (2,8067 found; there was one without a Wikidata item). --Canley (talk) 02:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

George Denton Park

The article about George Denton Park has been given categories for a person and also added to Wikidata as a human male. I had begun to amend the Wikidata item before discovering the WP categorisation, reverted my changes and seek resolution by an editor more experienced than myself in this situation. Oronsay (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I've put a split proposal on the article and sorted out Wikidata. Further discussion is best to be had on the article's talk page. Schwede66 00:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Schwede66: Many thanks. Oronsay (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Russell McVeagh

Editors may be interested in these discussion Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#wikiprofessionals inc and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC: Wikiprofessionals Inc, and paid editing, as it's been claimed that the article on Russell McVeagh was created for pay, and should be deleted. Nil Einne (talk) 17:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've added my 2c. Schwede66 19:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject New Zealand in The Signpost

Stuartyeates — gadfium — Avenue:, came across this little gem from October 2011. I find it amazing that nine years later, we are still all active. Have our interest areas moved much? I'm currently writing another earthquake article (an overview one at that). I'm glad to be able to say that we got on top of the macron issue. Maybe we should gear up for an update for The Signpost. Schwede66 18:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

My areas of interest have not moved substantially, except perhaps I now do more new pages patrol. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Interesting to read this article again. I note that Strongman Mine still has only one sentence about the 1967 explosion (although it was referenced possibly in response to my comment). I visited the memorial on SH6 earlier this year but didn't remember that I had used this as an example of our gaps in coverage.-gadfium 07:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Wētā

I've posted a note note on Talk:Weta about moving it to Wētā. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Seeking volunteers for Wikipedia:WikiProject Cook Islands

WikiProject Cook Islands is marked as inactive. I've been doing political bios and elections for it for years, because there's usually digital sourcing for those, but I'm wondering if anyone here - and ideally, anyone of Cook Islands descent who actually knows about the place - would be interested in joining the project to work on it. There's a lot of work that needs doing, and I'm neither competent or comfortable doing it. --IdiotSavant (talk) 04:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Starshipit

Added entry for Starshipit to WP:NZ#Pages needing work. Was wondering if anyone from WP:NZ could take a look at it and assess it. My first impression is that this is a blob of WP:COI/WP:UPE created PR fluff that has flown under the radar since created in 2014; the article didn't even have a talk page until today. I see no real indication that the company meets WP:NORG, but I only did cursory search and there may be something I'm missing. I came across the article by chance via WP:FFU#Starshipit Logo. I did some minor cleanup, but there's not much substance to the article, with the main sources cited being a blog interview and a NZ Herald article which seems to be more of an interview type of puff piece than a critical discussion of the company. The other source cited is dead and I can't find an archived version of it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it's a non-notable company and have proposed it for deletion. MurielMary (talk) 03:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at this MurielMary. The article was de-prodded by another editor. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Taiari / Chalky Inlet and Wikidata / OSM

Kia ora koutou - I'm working on adding an article for Taiari / Chalky Inlet, but struggling a bit with the map aspect of it (like how other fiords have the embedded OpenStreetMap showing the fiord's area) - I've found that there's already the same area definition on OpenStreetMap, and an entry for Taiari / Chalky Inlet on Wikidata, but I can't figure out how to link them together so that it's able to show up, since by my understanding the embed uses the reference to wikidata to do so. Could someone please point me in the right direction / help sort it? Turnagra (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

You need to add the Wikidata Q-number (Q32157316) to the boundary relation in OpenStreetMap (10674510). It takes a few days for the data to sync over to the Wikimedia map service, but then the outline should show up in the map frame. You should also add the OSM relation ID to the Wikidata item. --Canley (talk) 00:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I've added these IDs to OSM and Wikidata. I've embedded the map frame below so we can keep an eye on whether it all syncs over correctly (at the moment it is pointing to the Atlantic Ocean. --Canley (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

There is a tool - OSM ↔ Wikidata matcher - which can be used for matching and adding Wikidata entries to OSM. You will need an OSM login to upload the changes. Also, do it by city/district or region to keep things manageable. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 08:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both! It's working now, and the article is finally live at Taiari / Chalky Inlet. Thanks again! Turnagra (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

New Māori Party colour scheme

Kia ora friends, I proposed new colours for the Māori Party a while ago on Template talk:Māori Party/meta/color. There hasn't been any response for a few days now and I don't want to make the change without consultation, could someone have a look at this? --MerrilyPutrid (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Tropical cyclones in New Zealand, Floods in New Zealand, Tornadoes in New Zealand?

Hi there, from the US to the land of the Hobbits (and whose leader I would trade with, even if it's just for a few months!!). I wondered if there were any weather or science nerds out there. You're lucky that your country is relatively out of the tropics, but some of you might remember Cyclone Wilma in 2011, which came closer to hitting the country as a tropical cyclone than any other storm. There was also Cyclone Bola in 1988, which dropped torrential rainfall, or the TEV Wahine disaster of 1964, caused by Cyclone Giselle, which produced wind gusts of 275 km/h. Category:Tropical cyclones in New Zealand has 25 storms included. I, for one, would be interested in an article on Tropical cyclones in New Zealand, to see if there are any others, and their effects. This is part of a push to get lists of tropical cyclone effects for every part of the world (that is affected by tropical cyclones).

Your beautiful country has likely seen its share of Floods. Right now there are only four flood events listed under Category:Weather events in New Zealand. One of them is the vaguely titled Great storm of 1868. I'm sure there are a great deal number of other flood events.

As for tornadoes - several tornadoes are listed under Tornadoes in New Zealand, and List of Southern Hemisphere tornadoes and tornado outbreaks lists 11. According to the New Zealand Meteorological Service, there are 7 to 10 tornadoes each year, so a list could potentially include hundreds.

I hope anyone reading this is doing well, in this unusual year of Covid. The US is kinda jealous of your leadership navigating that crisis. So, here's hoping you're healthy, and this message might cross the eyes of someone interested in weather. Kia Ora. Haere ra. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Waitomo

Can I have some feedback on what should be done at Waitomo where an editor is replacing Waikato in the region field of the infobox with King Country. I've put a summary at Talk:Waitomo.-gadfium 06:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd agree that Waikato is the best option. It fits with the Regional council boundaries and Waitomo District is part of Waikato. King Country is an informal region at best and is fairly outdated. Could maybe mention that it's within the traditional area of the King Country, but as far as the first sentence goes I think anything other than Waikato Region would be wrong. Turnagra (talk) 08:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

'Waikato' or 'Waikato Region' in the infobox for sure, but I think 'King Country' is good in the first sentence, where the more specific term is better than the term that covers Cape Colville to Mount Ruapehu. I said more at Talk:Waitomo two days ago. Nurg (talk) 09:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Fiord articles name change proposal

Kia ora koutou, just a heads up that I've made a proposal to change the three remaining fiords in Fiordland to their dual names, but for some reason it's not showing up on the list of proposals. The proposal is over on Talk:Milford Sound if anyone has time to head over and comment. The proposed changes are:

• Milford Sound → Milford Sound / Piopiotahi
• Doubtful Sound → Doubtful Sound / Patea
• Preservation Inlet → Rakituma / Preservation Inlet

I'm not quite sure why it isn't showing up, but again if someone's able to look over and comment that would be useful! Turnagra (talk) 05:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Papatoetoe

User:121.98.239.39 has recently added 2018 census demographics to the article on the South Auckland suburb of Papatoetoe. I've got a few comments on which area units should be included in Papatoetoe, and have asked a few questions at Talk:Papatoetoe#Statistical units. Any input is welcome.-gadfium 05:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Te Aniwaniwa (Ani) Harepeka Nako Bosch née Hona

Hi Friends in NZ, I usually work on the Wiki Women in Red project and came across this Maori writer Te Aniwaniwa (Ani) Harepeka Nako Bosch née Hona. I understand the name she used to write was Ani Hona. My question is about what the best name to use would for a page for her? Should I use her pen-name, or her full name? I know nothing about Maori naming conventions and am keen to learn, but don't want to make a mistake. Advice gratefully received! (Lajmmoore (talk) 08:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC))

I'd say name the article Ani Hona, with redirects from Te Aniwa Hona and Te Aniwaniwa Hona at the very least. The first two appear at a quick glance to be the names she mostly wrote under. Paora (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much @Paora: and for the tip on the re-directs. (Lajmmoore (talk) 08:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC))

Invitation to join a call with the Wikimedia Foundation

Kia ora koutou, the Affiliations Committee has asked us to attend a call one Saturday in the next 4 weeks to discuss our progress over the past year of being an affiliate, and to offer help to expand and grow our user group. Sounds positive! If you would like to join this call, let me know either here or by email and I'll share the specific times (there are 4 times available over the next month). I need to respond by 15 September.

Details on the purpose of the call:

We hope this email finds you well. Affiliations Committee is reaching out to the new affiliates which have been recognized in the last one year with information on the upcoming Onboarding calls. The onboarding calls with affiliates are being organized to share information about the available resources extended by the Wikimedia Foundation to support the affiliates in order to manage and expand their activities. This will also be an opportunity for us to understand your experience and challenges in the first year of working as a recognized affiliate. The Affiliations Committee is interested in encouraging some best practices for your group’s healthy development and continued growth. The proposed practices include the adoption of friendly space policies, being thoughtful about encouraging diversity and inclusion, and developing healthy collaborations [with existing communities/across your membership]. MurielMary (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Music of Polynesia

At WP:ORN, a user described the abysmal state of the article Music of Polynesia. Specific problems include a weasel-worded and unverified lead; an incomplete history lacking inline citations; and the rest of the article being an indiscriminate collection of facts. It is a stub. Since this WikiProject often works on Polynesia articles, I'm seeking a user who is knowledgable in this topic area to make desperate improvements. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Good grief, this is pretty outrageous: "Polynesian music is mostly associated with twinkling guitars, grass skirts and beautiful relaxing sounds, Hawaiian Hula and other tourist-friendly forms of music" — I'll definitely see what I can help with. Jon (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

“Papamoa" and “Papamoa Plaza"

Kia ora. An enthusiastic editor has recently moved “Papamoa” to “Pāpāmoa”, and “Papamoa Plaza” to “Pāpāmoa Plaza”. However, there are several problems with this:

• LINZ does not list the spelling “Pāpāmoa” at all (as either an official or unofficial name)
• LINZ lists “Papamoa” and “Papamoa Beach” (without macrons) as official names: [6] and [7]
• The website for “Papamoa Plaza” - [8] - does not use macrons at all. (Note that the “Official website” link listed at Pāpāmoa_Plaza#External_links is broken, and should be changed.)
• None of the (working) references listed on the (renamed) Papamoa Plaza page use the macron at all.

Per WP:NZNC#Place_names, both pages should be moved back (and this editor’s other recent changes reverted). Could someone with appropriate permission take care of this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.229.236 (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I have changed this back, it may end up causing disagreements but think this is best discussed first. Especially since LINZ doesn't have it with the macrons. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 22:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I noticed the moves and was considering whether to revert them, but I found numerous sources such as Pāpāmoa Hills Regional Park, Pāpāmoa and Pāpāmoa 'pink' beach house sells for $3.15m - almost $1m above CV which suggests the macrons are correct. However, unless LINZ updates their records, I agree that the names without macrons should be used.-gadfium 22:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Was what I found as well, there does appear to be a lot that use the macrons but then just as many that don't, so went with what LINZ has. That isn't to say it may not change in the future. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 23:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

If macron use is not official, this really needs to go through a move request first. Schwede66 01:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Genuine question - please clarify succinctly what is the current position? My understanding of it is that: When using NZ English acrons are used only if NZ-RSS's use them, taking into account as best as possible percentage use, weighting and the 10YT. (Not whether the spelling is official or not). This means a determination has to be made on a case by case basis, as seems to be happening here with Papamoa. I am just looking for clarification and will not enter a lengthy debate on this. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:NZNC#Place_names: "Where the commonly used name is of Māori origin, use the spelling as defined in the New Zealand Gazetteer if the entry is labelled "official"." There are cases where the "official" name was gazetted many years ago, and is likely to be revised one day to include a macron. Nevertheless, we've agreed to use the "official" name until that happens. It's not done on a case-by-case basis. "Papamoa" was gazetted as the official name in July 2020, so we can assume they've done due diligence and the name really does not use a macron. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 09:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@NZFC: Ironically the NZ Gazetteer lists the official name of Otumoetai as "Otūmoetai" and this school uses the name "Ōtūmoetai". Interesting. --BrianJ34 (talk) 08:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Photos of New Zealand

I have heard through another person that "Wikipedia New Zealand " needs photos of New Zealand places. As I freguently photograph photos of New Zealand, I would like to know how to submit photos of New Zealand and what "Wikipedia" needs by way of photography.?

Here is by way of opening this venue...

@IronPapilion5: - Hi there! A good place to start would be to look at Wikimedia Commons, which is organised in categories. Create an account on there, and have a look around the New Zealand category, and in particular the relevant subcategories (geography, culture, etc.) There are also Commons apps for Android and iOS devices, that help with uploading and tagging photos. Be aware that photos you have taken that you upload to Commons must be openly licensed, see attached graphic. There are lots of NZ articles that could do with a picture to illustrate the subject. Some of them can be found with this search (which finds things containing the words "New Zealand" tagged with Template:Photo requested) but there are probably cleverer ways to find them, which others here might be able to help with. Good luck! — Jon (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

One correction – you already have an account on Commons; it’s the same that you use to post here. With regards to categories on Commons, that’s not straightforward. Just upload something and someone can then explain how this works using your uploads. Or do that part for you. Schwede66 17:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Kaiwaka

I propose to update the Kaiwaka page to try to get it to A grade. I've made some suggestions in the Talk:Kaiwaka page and would appreciate any advice or comments to help improve the page. I am a Kaiwaka resident. Thanks Avowkind (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Input wanted

Others might want to chip in at Talk:Shirley, New Zealand; there’s some editing going on by an experienced editor that could be regarded as disruptive. Schwede66 03:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Political candidate photos

Notifying you of a discussion item (2020 party list candidate photos) as I suspect that not many editors have that page on their watchlist. Please comment there. Schwede66 21:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Te Kawa Mataaho Public Service Commission

It has just been brought to my attention that that State Service Commission has been renamed as Te Kawa Mataaho Public Service Commission yet it's Wikipedia article continues to be named State Services Commission. I've put a note on the Wikipedia page that it should be renamed but I thought I'd also raise this for community consultation here in case anyone might object. - Ambrosia10 (talk) 21:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I think this maybe part of a bigger discussion as more and more departments now are officially using their Maori names. Pages like Ministry for Children should really be called Oranga Tamariki now, Ministry of Transport has updated their website and handles for social media to Waka Kotahi. I'm sure there are more as well that are using the Maori name as their official name, I had one at work the other week but for the life of me, can't remember which agency it was. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 22:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Just for clarity, Waka Kotahi is the NZ Transport Agency, not the Ministry of Transport (which is Te Manatū Waka). I'd agree that we should be having a wider discussion about this as I don't believe anyone has referred to Oranga Tamariki as solely the Ministry for Children since it was renamed - occasionally as a the dual name (Oranga Tamariki - Ministry for Children) but never on its own. Turnagra (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Apologies you're right got them mixed up. Yeah Oranga Tamariki is a clear need of a name change now as well. There maybe others but probably also good to have a discussion around when does the page name get changed to the more commonly used Maori name of organisations though it may also just be more noticeable because it was Maori Language week. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 00:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

One of the issues with this is always whether common name status has been reached. What I suggest you do is pick one of the less commonly known names (and Te Kawa Mataaho may well be suitable) and put forward a formal move request, outlining the issues (e.g. the move request in lieu of wider discussion, practice of NZ government departments, common names in general, this name in particular isn't quite so common yet, etc). If there is strong support for such a test case, we can safely assume that we have general consensus. If we don't get clarity, then a wider discussion would be needed. Schwede66 02:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

It is the official name, that recognised by legislation, that stands. A redirect may be necessary from the organisations previous name may be necessary for the sake of continuity in my opinion. NealeFamily (talk) 03:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

On what basis does the official name "stand", NF? If we followed that rule, WP would be inundated with names in articles that nobody ever uses, or has ever heard of. We would have to change the Argentina article to the Argentine Republic, to use just one example. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Support for Auckland Museum WikiCite grant application

Kia ora. We at Auckland Museum have recently applied for a WikiCite grant, and would love endorsements from the NZ Wikipeida community. Information on the proposed project can be found on the application page. Thank you. —Hugh (talk) 03:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Unidentified buildings on Commons

Dawson Falls Mountain Lodge

There are a few photos of buildings on Commons in Category:Unidentified buildings in New Zealand. I think all the photos are from one specific Flickr user. I've asked the photographer whether she could help with identifying the buildings. What she has done is amended the descriptions on Flickr. Each photo has a link to its source photo on Flickr. So if anybody is looking for something to do on a rainy day, this would be a good one. If you are unsure how to start, ping me and I can give some guidance. Schwede66 03:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Sweet, I am looking for some more to do so will work my way through these now. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 04:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for putting your hand up. Let me post here with some corrections as this may come handy not just for you but also others who want to chip in:

• I've had a look at Dawson Falls Mountain Lodge (see photo on right). It was over-categorised.
• What you do is you look at the category tree and find the lowest sub-category that is suitable.
• There is c:Category:Dawson Falls (New Zealand) but that is for the waterfall.
• There is Dawson Falls (Q65432023) on Wikidata for the locality and that would be a much better fit. I've set up a Commons category for this.

I hope these comments are helpful. Schwede66 21:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Hamilton suburbs: Chartwell and Fairfield

Any Wikipedian who is familiar with this area, or who has insight to give, is welcome to comment on a discussion on how we should match up census demographics to the Hamilton suburbs of Chartwell, Hamilton and Fairfield, Hamilton. The discussion is at Talk:Fairfield, Hamilton#Schools in Miropiko. The issue is that the census divides these suburbs into four census areas, and one area, Miropiko, cuts across both of them.-gadfium 01:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know enough about Hamilton to weigh in on this discussion specifically, but I'd be interested in knowing the outcome for my work on Christchurch's suburb pages. I've just realised recently the disconnect between suburb areas and the Statistical areas, and might need some assistance in figuring out how to accurately divide them up to reflect the populations and areas of the various suburbs there. Turnagra (talk) 01:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

SA1 districts of Chartwell and Fairfield in Hamilton

While the SA2 districts are nicely-labelled with names, I would suggest in these cases where the SA2 district crosses several suburbs or localities, that the finer SA1 census districts be used instead. I have plotted the area in question to the right – Chartwell and Fairfield are in blue, the Miropiko SA2 is in red, and the SA1 areas are labelled with their numbers. This more closely corresponds to the following SA1 areas in the Miropiko SA2. --Canley (talk) 06:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

SA2	Suburb	SA1s
Miropiko	Chartwell	7012007, 7012078, 7012079, 7012080, 7012082, 7012083, 7012085, 7012087, 7018081
	Fairfield	7012084, 7012086, 7012088, 7012089, 7012090, 7012091, 7012092, 7012093, 7012202, 7012203, 7012204

Survey on proposed 2021 Wikimedia Aotearoa conference

Kia ora koutou, please see below for a link to a survey to gather interest in a planned Wikimedia Aotearoa conference to be held on the beautiful West Coast of the South Island, in early 2021. The survey is open until 18 November. https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/K37CY2B MurielMary (talk) 10:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I filled it out but noticed that it didn't ask me to say who I am. Would that not be useful to record? Schwede66 20:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I assumed I would get a list of people/addresses but it seems that the system doesn't work that way. I've added a question inviting people to provide their email address for updates if they wish. MurielMary (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Lists of items listed by Heritage New Zealand

To progress the ideas discussed during today's Aotearoa New Zealand Online meeting, I wonder whether we should set up a sub-project to WPNZ and list it in the sidebar. If so, should we refer to it as "Heritage task force" and list it under Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/heritage? The goal, as I see it, is to create a boilerplate text and an auto-generated list to match something like the Takaka example. Schwede66 02:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a good way to coordinate it, it will be a lot of pages so will presumably generate quite a bit of discussion as we go. DrThneed (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea! There are some Australian equivalents which might be helpful: Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian historic places is the WikiProject, and I set up some auto-generated lists sourced from Wikidata for each state/territory heritage register which were used for Wiki Loves Monuments in 2018 and 2019. --Canley (talk) 03:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

There will be plenty of people better at sparql and Listeria than I, but it is quite fun to learn new tools, so here is a first crack (using Hokitika as an example). If anyone knows how to get rid of the 'en' at the start of the street address let me know! Just creating the list was quite useful as it showed me that we had accidentally used a photo of the Bank of New Zealand for the National Bank.DrThneed (talk) 09:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Just a note that the redlink for the project page has just gone blue: Wikipedia:WikiProject_New_Zealand/heritage Schwede66 09:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata page for WikiProject New Zealand

Just to note here for NZ Wikipedia editors interested in Wikidata too, there is now a project page to coordinate our efforts, and host some basic maintenance queries (e.g. I've just added one to list NZ researchers who have a Wikipedia page without a Scholia template). DrThneed (talk) 03:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

First woman in the General Fono (Tokelau)

Hello. I am trying to find out who the first woman to sit in the General Fono of Tokelau was, but have been unable to find a definitive answer for Tokelau. This article suggests it was Vaelua Lopa, but the wording is not clear enough for me to be certain. Any help gratefully received! (asking here as all the other relevant WikiProjects appear to be inactive). Cheers, Number 57 18:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know, sorry, but the article you link to does not suggest it was Vaelua Lopa. It possibly suggests (unclearly, as you say) that she was Atafu's first woman member of the General Fono. She may (or not) have been preceded by women members from the other atolls. Nurg (talk) 08:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Best-Dressed?

I see that @Phantomwiki: has added a line to each of about a dozen articles where David Hartnell has mentioned the person on a "Best-Dressed List", eg at Wendy Petrie#Career. This is sourced, but I feel it is unencyclopedic trivia. This is not an award, it's just someone's opinion. If there is agreement that this is trivia, I'll remove it from the articles.

Would it be appropriate instead to have an article on Hartnell's Best-Dressed List? Apparently he's produced it since 1981, but looking at incoming links to Hartnell's article it appears previous versions of the list have rarely been added to articles. There's also a Worst-Dressed list, but I think adding a line about that to any BLP would be rather quickly removed as negative trivia.-gadfium 01:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I doubt that the list itself is notable enough for its own article, but it might merit a section on Hartnell's page. Adding a best-dressed mention or "win" on a person's page should depend on some reasonable link to their job or their reason for notability, especially to avoid a likely gendered bias (i.e., that women are talked about more for their clothes than their achievements). Ex: a social-media star/influencer should probably have the mention, but a journalist probably should not (whether someone's role as a tv anchor merits the mention is up for debate, but I lean weakly towards leaving that one there at least for the moment). — HTGS (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I feel its non-notable trivia (and should thus be removed) and my gut feeling is that a standalone list would not meet GNG, but if somebody assembles a list of suitable references, I could be convinced otherwise on the second point. Schwede66 04:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Aotearoa New Zealand Online Meetup

Just a reminder that there will be an Aotearoa New Zealand meetup online at 12 noon Sunday the 6th of December. See the event page for more details and the link to join. Ambrosia10 (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Auckland Museum Wikimedian in Residence - applications open

Kia ora koutou, Auckland Museum has received Wikicite funding for a Wikimedian in Residence. This is a short term 3-month project role requiring 30 hours of work per week. The position is scheduled to commence on 11 January 2021 and finish on 2 April 2021, and will contribute to our Wiki Workplan for 2020-21. You can find more details and apply here. Happy to answer any questions. Jetaynz (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Women in New Zealand

I have found myself making several lists of women who need to be worked on, and it has occurred to me that we could have a subproject for NZ women if there was interest. Currently I have the list of the Royal Society's "150 women in 150 words" project, the recipients of the Queen Elisabeth Medal list (not all NZers but mostly), and a new list of female professors at New Zealand institutions. What do you think?DrThneed (talk) 03:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Kia ora, wow, I absolutely love redlists so I'm happy to see new ones I wasn't aware of! I wonder if we can add these three lists to the Women in Red list index as then there will be a lot more editors seeing them and potentially writing on these women? The list index is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Redlist_index and if you agree we could ask RosieStep (or post on the Women in Red project page) for advice on how to add our lists. I think joining our work to the global work would really make a difference. MurielMary (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

MurielMary, thanks! I've had a look at the WiR lists (despite joining the project a while ago, I hadn't spend much time looking at the lists before). I have changed the lists to include only redlinks, so they'll fit, and will post there to see about including them. I had forgotten there is also the list of winners of the Women of Influence awards, too. The only one that won't obviously fit is the list of female professors (they have a similar list but it won't include our professors automatically because they are using a different definition of professor. I will mention that though in case they decide to include full professors in their list).

Susan_Tol I wonder if you have any comment? I was remembering your mention at the last user group meeting that including NZ women in international redlists hadn't made much impact on the lists, whether it is worth also having a list of lists locally as a way of making it easier for those of us here to find them (the WiR list of lists is a little overwhelming for me at least!). It could just link to the relevant redlists in WiR but also contain any that don't fit there, have a link to the template that Stuart created for female academics, link to your Googlesheet if you want, and any other resources that crop up? DrThneed (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes the list of lists is quite overwhelming, I agree! Can get lost just reading all the lists! A couple of years ago Women in Red chose New Zealand as the theme for a month-long focus and that created quite a bit of attention and new articles being created from the NZ list that comes out of Wikidata. I think if we had even more redlists available we could ask for NZ to be a theme for another month and get some more help from the global community of editors. MurielMary (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Here's the record of that month: 120 articles created, September 2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Meetup/56 MurielMary (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Wow that's a huge impact! DrThneed (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Update: I've posted in WiR about how to get my lists into their index. In the meantime, no one has stepped forward on Facebook to take up the reins from Stuartyeates writing bios for NZ female professors. Our profs won't show up on the WiR redlist as they use a different professor property in Wikidata (which is not the right one for our purposes). I worry that if the redlist stays in my userspace it is not going to get as much attention as it could if it was in a shared space. DrThneed (talk) 05:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I've found some more duplicates and so the redlist now stands at 38. Am happy to have a crack at a few, starting with those appointed in 2019 and 2020. I assume this is Stuart's template you referred to. I've also looked at his sciblogs posts and will follow his hints. The new articles should appear in the listing at Wikipedia:New articles (New Zealand). I assume other editors have it on their watchlists. Oronsay (talk) 07:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

You're a star! I wrote a workflow to remind myself of the things to check as I do these (and giving a link to the template, sorry, you were right which one I meant), I'm sure I've missed some things though so feel free to edit. DrThneed (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy to contribute and I added a suggested step to the workflow. I'm not at all confident with Wikidata though - would it be problematic if I started with step 2 on the workflow i.e. started with creating WP articles and left the Wikidata tasks to someone else? MurielMary (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

MurielMary, not remotely problematic. I put that stuff in for people who are happy to do both but you can just leave out the Wikidata part and it'll be fine. But I am always happy to be pinged or messaged on Fb if you want Wikidata stuff doing though. DrThneed (talk) 06:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh and thanks for the extra templates for the talk page! DrThneed (talk) 06:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I've posted on the WiR ideas page regarding a focus on New Zealand sometime in 2021. Let's see! MurielMary (talk) 10:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

MurielMary / DrThneed / Oronsay: Sorry I missed most of this, I was on my summer break. I have previously toyed with the idea of getting in touch with Graduate Women International / https://twitter.com/graduatewomennz who seem to be the most likely people to have records of women academics graduates in NZ. https://nzhistory.govt.nz/women-together/graduate-women-new-zealand also has some excellent starting sources for folks. Please be aware that some living women do not want articles and most of the remaining ones fall under WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE --- they can request their articles be deleted if they don't want one. If you want details of what this looks like, drop me an email, since I'd rather not publicise those who've made the choice. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I seem to have missed this as well. Anyway what I would love to do is generate some lists of NZ women in creative arts especially performing arts that I believe are notable from a few sources. Awards - arts foundation, the CNZ awards for Māori and Pacific arts, festival programmes and festival staff. Quite a few don't have Wikidata items so are not usually on the WiR lists. Keen to capture the organisers and producers as well as the makers. Will look at some of the work already done on lists especially workflow links to make a table. Pakoire (talk) 03:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Also coming in late! DrThneed you're right, I found adding names to WiR lists had pretty much no impact on the uptake of those articles. Pakoire, here is a very small list that I've compiled of people who might fit the criteria you are looking for. If you follow the link to the WiR lists which I've added each of the respective women to there are sources on each of the women there. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1thJxRR5oUgmvqVLWE0p2eszPOeCQpPr6emHoIDAdQoY/edit#gid=0 The list is a little messy with our attempts to do a bulk wikidata add so feel free to steal if you need a fresh start! I would be keen on a NZ women specific subgroup and would be keen to get involved. I also have a copy of the book Crafting Aotearoa which I've been meaning to work my way through for finding artists, that also has accompanying articles on auckland museums website. Susan Tol (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

NZ Suburbs infobox

I've been slowly working my way through the Christchurch suburb pages to update them with Template:Infobox New Zealand suburb, but I'm wondering if it would be worth making a few improvements to the template. I posted something on the relevant talk page back in February but never had any further replies, so I figured it may be worth posting something here to get input from people who may be interested. My initial ideas include:

• Adding the city name to the banner (eg. instead of "Suburb", "Suburb of Christchurch") - at the moment, the actual city doesn't seem to be listed anywhere. The closest is "local authority", which is intended as the relevant council instead of the city itself.
• Removing the default map - at the moment, this means that the template defaults to a map of New Zealand, something which in my view isn't as important for a suburb page as the suburb's location within its respective city.
• Adapting the infobox to allow for floating images to be on the left of the page. This may be a bug, but at the moment it seems as though the infobox pushes any other images on the page to below it, something which other infoboxes don't appear to do.
• Providing the option for area to be given in square kilometres instead of hectares, which seems to be the more common measurement recently.

Given the potential impact that some of these would have on other pages across NZ, I wanted to gauge thoughts before pushing ahead with anything as it would likely be a sizeable job to update everything (though the work on each page would likely be minor) Turnagra (talk) 09:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Located in

This phrase is commonly used to say where a place is. For example, see Sydenham and Beckenham. The word located is superfluous in most cases and is slightly artificial. There is nothing wrong with saying 'Xtown is in South Auckland'. I suggest we make an effeort to remove the phrase ' located in' most of the articles where it exists. There will be some examples where it is necessary, but that will be fairly unusual. I haven't yet changed anything, but wondered first is others agreed with this proposed change? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm missing something, but I'm only seeing one use of 'located in' in either of the articles mentioned? At any rate, I think it could be worth keeping in mind not to use it unnecessarily, but I think expanding on the content in these articles is more worthwhile to help bring them up to scratch. Turnagra (talk) 07:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is only used at the start, in what has become an opening phrase in many articles about towns around the world, not just in NZ. It has always struct me as being an overused and often unnecessary buzzword wherever it is used. There was recent reference to this here [9] which made me think of mentioning on this page seeing as we often find it being used in NZ articles. Unless anyone objects, I will remove it when I see it used unnessarily. Hopefully others might do the same. Yes, I know the bigger picture is to add more detail to articles! Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Property Institute of New Zealand

This article is quite shabby. Could someone please fix it up or, alternately, nominate it for deletion? Bearian (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I reverted the blurb taken from the organisation's website, and what's left is a basic stub. I see no reason to nominate that for deletion.-gadfium 03:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Anne Blackburn (banker)

The article Anne Blackburn (banker) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable banker and volunteer

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Aotearoa New Zealand Online Meetup 3 January 2021

This meeting will be held at noon on Sunday the 3rd of January (New Zealand time). You will find the agenda and link to join the meeting here. Ambrosia10 (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia 20 celebrations

For those wanting to join in the Wikipedia 20 celebrations I've been informed that there will be an Australia/New Zealand Community Celebration on Friday the 15 January 2021 9:00 PM – 10:30 PM NZDT. To register see: this link The platform this celebration will take place on will be decided nearer the date and details will be emailed to you if you register. - Ambrosia10 (talk) 02:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Can we find someone other than Ron Brierley to illustrate the honours article?

Has been in the news recently, and his investiture currently illustrates the New Zealand royal honours system article. Given that he's now facing 14 charges, and his predatory business model of borderline theft, can we surely find a more noble New Zealander, amongst our best and brightest, for such an illustration? Thoughts? — Jon (talk) 08:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Should be pretty easy to find a replacement person and photo. Just a quick search on events at Government House shows both Derek Lardelli in a uniquely different knighting or James McNeish in the more classical version of it. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 09:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Go ahead and change it. We have hundreds of investiture photos on Commons. I agree that there are “more noble New Zealanders” who we can use to illustrate the article with. Schwede66 14:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

NZ at the America's Cup

In the navbox Template:America'sCup there is the article "Italy at the America's Cup". It is the only article that covers a nation's entire history within the competition. So, I was starting to create an equivalent for NZ. But then I found the article "Team New Zealand" which seems to perform the same function. But it doesn't include anything about NZ participation in the current edition or the 1988 competition. Which makes me wonder if that article is about a specific "syndicate" (team) and not the entire history of NZ entry in the competition. Can someone clarify? And, if the scope of "Team New Zealand" should be expanded to be about all NZ entries, should the article be renamed to New Zealand at the America's Cup and the 1988 and 2021 content included within it? Wittylama 16:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Good idea. The broader topic of "New Zealand at the America's Cup" could include the contributions of NZers across all teams - including the moves of Russell Coutts, Dean Barker and other sailors between entries. Somej (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Māori-related articles

Hi all, I am keen to connect with other editors who are contributing to articles about Māori-related subjects. Some articles that I have edited recently include Māori culture, Hapū, Māori Art Market, Whakairo, Māori traditional textiles etc. When I am making links to these and other articles from bio's sometimes I feel the article don't do a good job of expanding knowledge. Some of the more prominent articles seem to have double up content. Māori people and Māori cultural for example. I am going to work on the Māori renaissance article and there is also Māori protest movement. Plus New Zealand history and culture and people articles, some of which have a lot of Māori culture content.

I have made a few comments on Talk pages - perhaps a good way to start is if you indicate interest here then I can ping you when I express my thoughts on Talk pages.

I have been editing for a year approx and am a newbie when thinking about the bigger structure like this. Maybe there are people in the Māori task force to have a discussion too? I am not sure how. Pakoire (talk) 03:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I've done some work on Māori Women's Welfare League, Māori renaissance and quite a few biographies. I'm more that willing to help in minor ways (I'm time-limited due to kids right now). Stuartyeates (talk) 10:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Something else to remember is that many places in New Zealand have both an English name and a Māori one. These names are often not simply translations of each other but have completely separate toponymies. Having edited here for a few more years than many, I realise I am still a bit of newbie at this too. Having distracted by other things for a few years, I sort of stumbled across a Māori place name issue in the last month. Previously I didn't know I didn't know about Māori place names. Now I have reached a stage of conscious incompetence and I know that I know nothing about Māori place names and are ready to face the Dunning–Kruger effect with awareness and learning by researching about Māori place names and concepts for the articles I am contributing to, by citing my sources. To address your problem, all I can suggest is Ask and ye shall receive! So be bold: edit articles and use those Talk pages - that is what they are there for - the interested users will find you if you do. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 12:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Section headings and content

Is there any commonly accepted convention about what content should be in various types of New Zealand articles and what section headings should be used? In the article for Wellington there is a Toponymy section that discusses the naming origins of the place. In other articles I have seen Etymology, Naming, or Naming and usage, or else there is some reference to the name and its alternatives in the History section or elsewhere in the article, perhaps. To me this seem confusing. Often when I visit an article about a place I want to know why the article has a name that differs from the official name shown on a map or want to know the origin of a name. If I know that a Toponomy or Naming section comes before the History section I can just read the section rather than wade though a possibly lengthy article searching for the information I want and perhaps not find it. If I knew there was some convention for content headings I could also know what might need to be added to an article. I realise everyone will probably have their own ideas and for some types of articles there is already an agreed standard set of headings of what a good article is expected to contain. But what I am after, mostly, is some suggestions to stimulate ideas about what an article could contain and how the generated content should then be presented in an article. Suggestions like when the History section or Geography section comes first, especially if the History discusses the Geography and vice versa. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Guidelines for structuring city/town articles already exist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 02:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that. No wonder I couldn't find anything I was looking in the wrong project. Might be a good idea to make a note of these guidelines in the guidelines for New Zealand place names. I assume following those guidelines for unsettled places, but with irrelevant sections omitted, would also be appropriate. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 06:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

SOUNZ identifier for NZ composers, performers, conductors, etc.

Hi folks, hopefully I haven't ballsed things up too much but if you are a Wikidatizen, please review and comment on the new property proposal for SOUNZ contributor ID. It will hopefully be an authority control field for persons and organisations involved in the New Zealand contemporary and art music fields. Thanks, and happy new year! — Jon (talk) 02:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Upcoming on the West Coast

I'm now a Digital Discovery Librarian at Westland District Library in Hokitika, helping organise some workshops and meetup events that are of wider interest to Wikipedians. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Greymouth Wikipedia Meetup

• Grey District Library, 18 Albert St, Greymouth, Saturday 30 January 2021, 1:00–4:00 pm

Hokitika Wikipedia Meetup

• History Room, Westland District Library, 20 Sewell St, Hokitika, Saturday 13 February 2021, 1:00–4:00 pm

These are two of a series of monthly meetups that will be running in Greymouth and Hokitika. There is now a West Coast Task Force project to coordinate editing and meetups. Remote participation is welcome!

Introducing Wikisource • a seminar by Andrew Wooding

• Digital Learning Centre, Westland District Library, 20 Sewell Street, Hokitika, Wednesday 10 February 2021, 3:00–4:30
• Afternoon tea provided; please RSVP to mike.dickison@westlib.co.nz

An introduction to Wikisource, a free repository of digitised out-of-copyright books uploaded and proofread by volunteers, and what this means for New Zealand libraries and museums. I've blogged here about using Wikisource to digitise West Coast historical material.

West Coast WikiCon

• Hokitika (venues at Como House, 51 Tancred Street and the Digital Learning Centre, Westland District Library)
• Sat–Sun 20–21 March 2021
• Registration (opening soon) will be just $20, with a mixture of presentations, skill sharing, and editing events for Wikipedians.

Wikimedia Foundation grant proposal

Hello all,

I have a grant proposal for submission to the Wikimedia Foundation to improve content on performing arts and theatre in New Zealand / Aotearoa.

It is called Performing Arts Aotearoa-WikiProject

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Performing_Arts_Aotearoa_-_Wiki_Project

I welcome your feedback and support.

Pakoire (talk) 06:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

How to handle?

Every now and then a curly one comes along which creates a dilemma. Such a one is Draft:Te Rehutai which is listed above, about the current Kiwi boat in the Americas Cup. The article is basically ok but a claim in it is not IMMHO.

The article states

Te Rehutai is Māori for "where the essence of the ocean invigorates and energises our strength and determination" or, more briefly, "seaspray".

The "seaspray" definition is fine, as in "Kua pūrehurehu noa a Tūhua i te rehutai -- Mayor Island is hazy because of the sea spray."

But the "where the essence of the ocean invigorates and energises our strength and determination" is clearly a fancifully conceived concoction. Nonetheless, it is referenced to a reliable source.

The dilemma is, do we run that daft definition and make Wikipedia look silly, or just leave it out? Anyone care to comment? Moriori (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The source here - the official website for the racing team - probably can't be assumed to be reliable given its promotional nature. Nick-D (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

You could give the meaning as seaspray, and add 'Team New Zealand interpret the name as....".-gadfium 22:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The longer name sounds like a Whakatauki. or an inspirational phrase to embody a vision and reflect a belief that something represents. Compare with the NZ Police Tohu. These words are probably an English translation of the original Māori blessing. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Sources IMO are rarely used properly: they can vary considerably in quality and therefore cause problems like this. I would look at the source, determine that it is not a 'reliable' secondary source and then remove it. You are then left with an unreferenced statement that you are free to remove. If it is determined by you or others that a good RSS is likely to be available somewhere, leave it until that source is found. Alternatively, add a disclaimer of some sort, as advised by CD, although for me this would be a secondary option. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Forget about it. The horse bolted in December. Surely there have been many similar "fancifully conceived concoction"s over the last 50 years. "This is how language is created" as someone said in print recently. Eddaido (talk) 22:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I have reworded the draft to present the poetic phrase more accurately and to make it seem less like a literal translation. Nurg (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Auckland Wikipedia meetup/edit-a-thon

Kia ora koutou, Tāmaki Paenga Hira Auckland Museum is hosting an edit-a-thon, facilitated by our Wikimedian in Residence.

• Saturday 6 March - TBC, will reschedule for level 1.
• 10am to 1pm
• Auckland Museum Library. We will meet at Tui Tui Cafe at 9:30am (Te Ao Mārama/South Entrance).
• Topic: International Women's Day/Women in Red project

Meetup page: Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland 10. Please add your name if you can come.

This is the first of a couple meetups we have planned for this year. Would be great to see members of the community from Auckland there. Jetaynz (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

We've decided to postpone the event for sometime when Auckland's back in level 1. Hopefully not too far off! --Prosperosity (talk) 02:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Aotearoa New Zealand Wiki meetup 28 Feb

Reminding folk that the Aotearoa New Zealand Wiki meetup will be held virtually at Noon New Zealand time on Sunday 28th of February. See this for the link, agenda and more information on the meeting. - Ambrosia10 (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Church of Confessing Anglicans Aotearoa/New Zealand

I've noticed some POV edits at Church of Confessing Anglicans Aotearoa/New Zealand, but I don't know much about this church. I would welcome other editors placing this article on their watchlists.-gadfium 08:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Māori names from NZ articles

Elaborateshotput is on a mission to eliminate Māori names from NZ articles including removing Aotearoa from the country name. All of this is justified by the guidance at WP:WINAD which relates to the addition of other language translations. I don't believe that this policy is applicable to a bilingual state where the Māori have equal validity and, in some cases , are the only names. I have made one reversion but would welcome the views of others.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}  

I'd be happy for this to be raised with some experienced and impartial wikipedians. English Wikipedia is in English. It makes sense to link to the Maori language articles if they exist, but it is not a dictionary. Elaborateshotput (talk) 13:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi both, I'm sure other more experienced editors will weigh in when it's morning in New Zealand. In the meantime, and for what it's worth given my relative inexperience, I would agree with Velella. Māori is an official language of New Zealand. I see a number of government departments have been edited to remove their Māori names, but these are the official names of those departments and it is entirely appropriate for the Māori name to be included in the article. WP:NCNZ is not exactly on point (since Elaborateshotput isn't moving article names) but it's relevant that Māori place names have official status and are included in page titles where appropriate, see for example Aoraki / Mount Cook. See also how this is dealt with in Canada: Government of Quebec and all other departments in Quebec include the French names.

I see other edits that have been made include things like changing pākehā to New Zealand European; I imagine this is an issue that has come up before and will let someone more experienced weigh in. For my part, both terms seem to have issues and I don't think it's appropriate to remove pākehā where it is used and accurate, unless there is a policy against its usage that I'm not aware of. Chocmilk03 (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Why there is further discussion that could be had about the translations/use in the body of the articles, it is incorrect to remove the Māori names that are translations of the English version, as per the users edits against all the different buildings, government agencies and place names. While using WP:WINAD they are ignoring in that policy "Article titles are in the English language, with some exceptions." Mainly being that it is quite common on English Wikipedia and the guidelines used allow articles to have the English name and then a translation of the other name it is also known by either previously or in a different language. See Peking used to be name for Beijing and has the Chinese translation in the lede, or you have Sverige which is Swedens official name, but both directs to Sweden and has the translation too. If they are used and reliable sourced, then they should be included in the articles. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 21:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I support User:Velella's comment that he doesn't "believe that this policy is applicable to a bilingual state where the Māori have equal validity and, in some cases , are the only names." I also support the numerous reverts by User:Schwede66. Moriori (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

It is entirely appropriate to include a translation to a local language in the lede (see MOS:LEADLANG, and thousands of examples throughout the English Wikipedia, such as Munich, Shanghai, Ministry of Armed Forces (France), and the aforementioned Quebec bilingual examples). Justification with WP:WINAD is wrong—this guideline does not forbid any presentation of etymologies, translations or pronunciation guides on Wikipedia, it just means that a Wikipedia article should not consist solely or mostly of these things, and these articles clearly aren't doing that. Removing the translation from "pavlova" was probably fine as there is no Māori derivation, etymology or close association, but place names and government agencies which officially and commonly use Māori names should retain these translations in the lede and infobox. --Canley (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

And we haven't even yet mentioned that many place names of Māori origin are official decisions of the New Zealand Geographic Board, which also has an official policy to use macrons on the letters of the names of Māori origin. We are talking New Zealand English here, which has borrowed so much from the Māori language in recent years. So much so that some New Zealand articles only have Māori names. What name does one use if one eliminates them? Some thing, organisation, programme, place or concept having names of Māori origin without an equivalent English name Wikipedia article about this conception? Māori names are a fact of life. Not having them and not using them is at least biased if not outright insulting and would introduce a non-neutral point of view that overrides Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Anyway, I think WP:WINAD is being misapplied. The purpose of applying WP:WINAD is to avoid creating a lexical entry about the word rather than an encyclopedic entry about the subject the word names. It is not a justification to remove content. It is a requirement to add lexical content about words to Wiktionary and write about the subject of the word in Wikipedia, rather than the article be about the word and its meaning or definition. A complete encyclopedia article in Wikipedia would give both English and Māori names as they are equally legitimate and perhaps some limited lexical information, such as a translation or origin, but that is a small opart of the article. Additionally, there should also be some Wiktionary entries for both the English and Māori words, in both English and Māori languages, if appropriate. Rather than deleting the Māori translation, the user should be linking and creating in Wiktionary lexical entries for both English and Māori word or phrase entries (in both the English and Māori languages) for the Māori words the editor is concerned about. WP:WINAD exists because Wiktionary exists and lexical entries should go there, not here. But simply removing content with the justification of WP:WINAD is a sign someone is being intentionally disruptive and hide it behind a policy screen. (And probably doesn't appreciate the implications of the policy in any case.) Reversion of all such removals by the editor using this justification is entirely appropriate. This is something that should be discussed beforehand on each talk page in any case. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

There are multiple categories here:

• Pages about places and government departments/positions
• Pages about general concepts about New Zealand that refer to places in New Zealand
• Pages about specific items and concepts related to New Zealand

In short, the first seems to have a precedent of being multilingual here, while the latter two don't.

As mentioned, place names seem to have a precedent of being listed in multiple languages if those are official languages in that country, this is the case with government departments and positions. This is only true for the specific pages about these places though, references to them are in English (for example, the page for Belgium has translations of the name, but Geography of Belgium refers to the English name for Belgium). This would mean my changes to Geography of New Zealand and History of New Zealand were consistent with other such pages. Other things that aren't exclusively in New Zealand shouldn't be translated into any local language, such as the Tasman Sea, compare with Black Sea.

As for the discussion on the use of the word pakeha, the term New Zealand European is used on the Demographics of New Zealand page, and it was used in the 2018 census; not to mention this term is going to be more understandable to international readers.

Elaborateshotput (talk) 08:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia - I see you're new here.

Wikipedia works largely through consensus and it's the consensus of most editors working on NZ articles to include Māori names of organisations where appropriate.

WP:ENGVAR states "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation". These places and organisations have bilingual formal names. Hence I travel with a "New Zealand Passport Uruwhenua Aotearoa" and buy my coffee with things labelled "Reserve Bank of New Zealand Te Pūtea Matua`".

Just file this away as 'a learning experience' and get back to improving articles. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Elaborateshotput: I'm also not sure I'd agree that the approach taken is "multilingual". Māori is part of New Zealand English. It's not controversial to say that the English language includes loanwords from foreign languages. In the context of an article that is appropriate to be in New Zealand English, there is nothing objectionable about using Māori loanwords. It's true that not all international readers will be familiar with the term Pākehā, but a wikilink to the article addresses that; in the same way that you'd wikilink haka, iwi, marae, pounamu or tangi... just to take a few examples of a very long list. Chocmilk03 (talk) 10:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Elaborateshotput: It is not being multilingual, it is New Zealand English. With government departments and city councils, especially, you will often find the organisation using the English or Māori part of their name depending on the context and audience, in English. The same often applies with dual place names and sometimes both names are used with both place names and organisations. Some organisations prefer to be known only by their Māori part of their name: Oranga Tamariki Ministry for Children is one of them, almost always only called Oranga Tamariki. The Māori part of a name is not a translation nor a multilingual use, it is the whole legal name, in English. The legislation they work under even has two names in English and it is the Māori part that is more commonly used. It is like being called by a first name and a last name; sometimes you get called by one, sometimes you get called by the other, sometimes both are used, depending on the situation. It is a matter of respect and appreciation of one-anothers' cultures.

It is one consequence of 180 years of colonisation and recent reconciliation where, after a short period of time, the colonising party first repudiated a treaty of partnership once it became inconvenient to honour it. After 140 years of repudiating and ignoring the treaty, such wrongs are now being addressed and now that many treaty settlements have been agreed, some measure of respect is now being required by the wronged party. New Zealanders themselves have been surprisingly accepting of these changes and new English words are being borrowed from the Māori language all the time. New Zealanders are immersed in naturally learning this evolving English language and usage every day, but if you are not in the country it is hard to keep up. (The latest term is "doing the mahi", often seen as a synonym for work, but the Māori concept of "mahi" is not easily expressed by simply translating it to the word "work" because the concept also includes aspects of training, apprenticeship and craftsmanship about an activity as well as having authority, prestige, pride or status.)

Also, I think you will find that Statistics NZ is becoming increasingly out of step with New Zealand society by persisting with using the term "New Zealand European", which dates from their desire not to change the definitions they started using in the 1996 census. Over time, New Zealanders thinking about this term is changing. Some in 2013 refused to use it and recorded their ethnicity as simply New Zealander, or even Pākehā, instead. Whilst this fell into the "Other" category on the census form, Statistics NZ regrouped these responses under New Zealand European instead. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 13:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cameron Dewe: All agreed. Speaking of Oranga Tamariki, I have moved that page to Oranga Tamariki – Ministry for Children (previously the page name was Ministry for Children). I think that's uncontroversial (the only question I suppose is whether Oranga Tamariki on its own might be better, but I erred on the side of the official name). Chocmilk03 (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Chocmilk03: I think using the official name in this instance is probably better, because that is what appears on their website. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Be careful, as Statistics NZ uses both "New Zealand European" and "European" with quite different meanings. "New Zealand European" are New Zealanders of European descent, while "European" includes both New Zealand Europeans and other people of European descent, such as migrant Europeans and white Australians, Americans, Canadians and South Africans. The former can be used interchangeably with Pākehā, but not the latter.Lcmortensen (mailbox) 00:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

"English Wikipedia is in English" was one of the tacks taken by the opponent(s) of last year's RfC on the use of macrons in New Zealand articles: Elaborateshotput might want to familiarise themselves with that debate. In short, Wikipedia articles about New Zealand are in New Zealand English {{en-NZ|date=March 2021}}, or should be, as per MOS:TIES. New Zealand English in reliable sources incorporates many Māori loanwords, and these are often the best and prevailing term. Of course words like pākehā should be linked when first used, and might even include a short explanation like "(New Zealander of European descent)", but should not be italicised, treated as a foreign word, or replaced by less-widely-used "English" term. The issue of Māori loanwords has been extensively debated and the consensus is that Wikipedia should reflect the usage of reliable NZ sources. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 08:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

What Elaborateshotput was doing is absolutely wrong (eg, removing the Māori name for Wellington and similar) but it feels like what a lot of people are talking about here are multiple different issues. For instance, yes, English Wikipedia is in English, but that doesn't mean a translation in one of the two (written) local languages isn't a helpful addition to the encylopaedia. And yes, the use of Māori words—whether or not they have been adopted into NZ English—is often better than the weak English translation (eg, iwi will always be better than "tribe", and tikanga is almost always better than a translation). (Some, like pākehā, will probably be context dependant; I personally use it only when the source uses it, or when talking about White people in relation to Māori.) But it is not our job to push Māori or bilingualism when it isn't helpful to the project or to the reader. Even though NZ's Reserve Bank has a name in English and in Māori, it is not called the "Reserve Bank of New Zealand Te Pūtea Matua", and if the common name for the Ministry for Children is "Oranga Tamariki", we should use that. We certainly should not be retooling page titles to awkwardly include both Māori and English when that is not how the subject is talked about. — HTGS (talk) 03:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Note that Elaborateshotput has not edited under that account since 6 March 2021; that was subsequent to me posting on the talk page. Schwede66 04:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

New Zealand cricket lists

Hi everyone. Hope you all are well. If anyone you have some time then please give your input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls on Irish cricket grounds. Thanks. Störm (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I notice that the discussion has since closed with the articles deleted. Even with the note from the closer, this feels like a real borderline call and it seems tenuous to say that there was a sufficient consensus there to provide grounds for the deletions. Turnagra (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The only thing that I've looked at is the rationale by the closing admin and that looks like a solid discussion. I'd say you would have a massive task on your hands to get that overturned. Schwede66 23:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I also note the closing statement that: However, as the subject of merging the information into existing articles was proposed and not objected to, I will temporarily userfy any article on request to allow the contents to be merged into an appropriate article. by the closing admin. If there is information of note that should be retained, then there is opportunity to do so. NealeFamily (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Auckland Museum WMF grant application - Wikipedia & compulsory history curriculum

Kia ora koutou

At Auckland Museum we're looking at ways we can support local teachers, the GLAM sector and the wider Wikipedia movement engage with the upcoming local history curriculum. We are looking at a two pronged approach: enhancing Wikipedia with local history resources, and encouraging Wikipedia editing by secondary school students as a means of applied learning of historical method. We think this would be beneficial for the education sector, the GLAM sector and would potentially help to grow a new generation of editors.

To start this off we would like to commission some research to see what teachers themselves think about using Wikipedia, and we have put together a grant application here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Wikipedia_and_the_Aotearoa_New_Zealand_History_Curriculum.

We would really appreciate community support as we think this has huge potential. Happy to answer any questions or comments here, or my email address is on the grant application page. Ngā mihi.

Jetaynz (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Women in Red Edit-a-thon @ Auckland Museum - rescheduled for 1-May

Hi all! We've rescheduled our in-person Women in Red Edit-a-thon at the Auckland Museum for Saturday 1 May 2021. We'd love if we could get a nice group of editors together to attend and use the library/online resources to make pages for some of our NZ women who really should have more info out there. There's a free lunch too! --Prosperosity (talk) 03:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Clarification on the use of dual names in article titles

Hi all,

I've been reading many of the articles in the New Zealand section and I'm not sure that Wikipedia's naming policy nor the dual name policy are being correctly followed when changing names of article titles. I've read the most recent debate above but I don't think it properly addresses the point I will atempt to make.

Wikipedia's naming policy states that "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used". Many of the name changes, such as here, here, and here either cite the official names as the primary reason for the change, or have non-trivial support for the change based on the official name. Unless I am mistaken, this would constitude a violation of the naming guidelines.

Wikipedia's naming policy also states five characteristics that make a good article name: recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness, and consistency. While the guidelines on precision, conciseness, and consistency are followed, I think the guidelines on recognizability and naturalness are not. Taking the article on Milford Sound / Piopiotahi as an example, the Google Trends results show a clear bias towards one over the other. One might argue that the article name is consistent with other article names, but it does appear that many of the other articles have the same issue (although some don't). Now, I am not trying to argue that Google Trends should be the arbiter of Wikipedia's naming conventions, what I am trying to say is that there does appear to be an inconsistent application of the guidelines when it comes to changing the names of articles, at least to someone who is not actively invovled in curating the New Zealand sections of Wikipedia like myself.

When it comes to the dual name policy it seems that there is some confusion on what it actually says. Articles such as here, here, and here seem to have had their name change in part because the dual name policy supports using dual names. However, the dual name policy does say that "If there are sources that indicate that a dual name has usage beyond mandatory official usage, put the article at the dual name, with redirects from each of the component names". This does not mean that an article should be renamed because it is official, but because the second name is used outside of official use. To use the article on the Avon River/Ōtākaro as an example, the user that requested the change did so based on the usage of the term by councils and libraries, which I would have though would have counted as official usage. The user also cites buisness names as an example of usage outside of official contexts, but the name of a buisness is not the same as the name of the river. One of the buisness' the user cites is Crown-owned (which, again, doesn't that make it official usage?) which uses one name over another in a map. All of this would support that one name is primarily used over the other outside of official contexts.

Given the above brief overview I am requesting clarification on the dual name policy, specifically in the following two areas:

• What exactly counts as official? Are councils official, or is it solely the gazzette? What about news media?
• How is "outside official context" determined? Is it based on the names used everyday or something else? In my personal experience, dual names arent used outside of official or media contexts.

It does seem that either the policies are applied arbitrarily, or that I am missing something, or that I have inadvertently cherry-picked the articles I have mentioned.

Thank you.

Spekkios (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I see you've also requested that the Clutha River / Mata-Au dual name be reverted to "Clutha River". As this name was changed by Act of Parliament, the case for the main entry having the official name appears even stronger than usual! Somej (talk) 04:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

That's sort of my entire point though. As per Wikipedia's naming policy and the dual name policy it doesn't matter what the official name is (whether it was done by parliament or not). What matters is the common name as used by the general public. As far as I can gather Mata-Au is not in general use and therefore that specific page needs to be reverted back to it's original in line with the aforementioned policies. Spekkios (talk) 07:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand) is the relevant guideline here, and particularly the Dual and alternative place names section. This page sets out the consensus for naming conventions in New Zealand, which in some cases differ from the universal Wikipedia conventions, and I think answers your questions as to what counts as "official" etc. I think that usage of the dual name in a Wikipedia title still requires "sources that indicate that a dual name has usage beyond mandatory official usage", but note that this doesn't require the alternative name to be in common usage. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 10:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

... sorry, just realised that's what you've been citing above. My mistake. In that case, I guess I don't quite understand what the issue is. For example, Ōtākaro is certainly a name used for the Avon River outside of official sources, even if it's not as commonly used as the latter. Here's just a few examples: [10] [11] [12] Chocmilk03 (talk) 10:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

And similarly, here's just a few sources showing that Mata-Au is used outside of official sources: [13] [14] [15]. I am sure there are others. The guidance doesn't require that dual names be in equally common usage; one of them might be used much more commonly but the other just needs to have "usage beyond mandatory official usage". If there are no sources or very few sources using one of the names, then I agree that there wouldn't necessarily be a case to include it in the article title. Chocmilk03 (talk) 10:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your response. Essentially I wanted clarification about what exactly constituted 'outside official usage' and what the bar for that was; is usage in news media, for example, the bar for usage outside of official. I think your point about 'common' usage not being the guideline clears it up, however. Thanks again. Spekkios (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

So someone's gone ahead and moved that page back to Clutha River, against this discussion. I'd undo the change , but it says it's already been reverted. Is that a Wikipedia bug? Somej (talk) 09:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm a huge believer in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand) and the Avon river is classic example, 'avon' means river and there's avon rivers pretty much everywhere. Transitioning to unique names benefits everyone. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Commom name is wiki policy and as such trumps NCNZ which is only a guideline. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Consensus is also a Wikipedia policy and through consensus, Wiki Project NZ came up with NCNZ to use as a guideline for NZ related articles and the use of certain names over the use of the site wide Commom name. It just seems the minority don't like that concensus made.NZFC^(talk)(cont) 01:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The consensus policy means that decisions are made by the community through consensus. It does not mean that a decision reached by consensus becomes policy. That is why NCNZ is a guideline, not a policy. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Consensus on dual names has been established on multiple occasions through numerous (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) unanimous move requests and through the establishment of NZNC - consensus doesn't need to be reached in every single instance when there is a clear consensus for the use of official dual names (as per User:Schwede66 in the Karewa / Gannet Island move request). Turnagra (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're getting this whole "policy trumps convention" thing from - the whole point of NZNC is for instances where we deviate from main policy - if the main policy is still to be followed, then wouldn't NZNC be completely redundant? [section] of the page on article names also implies that it's fine for naming conventions to do so provided that "it produces clear benefits outweighing the usage of common names" and that the titles "should follow a neutral and common convention specific to that subject domain", both of which are met by the dual name criteria regardless of the common name argument (which is separate, but I'd still argue many dual names meet this criteria also.) Turnagra (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Whakaari / White Island has fallen into common use, especially post-eruption. When was the last time it was referred to in New Zealand as just White Island? Lcmortensen (mailbox) 17:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

That wasn't the point I was trying to make. I wasn't disputing the name change. I was pointing out that much of the support for changing the name of the article cited reasons that the guidelines didn't appear to support, which is why I asked for some clarification. Spekkios (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

At first glance the guidelines approach to meeting the common name policy. "recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness, and consistency" does appear sound, especially as NCNZ does generally accept that being an official name in itself does not make a name commonly used. The issue I think we have is that many editors will not follow the guidelines properly because they are too detailed and too open to interpretation, and editors fall back on the official name, which is simple and unambiguous, despite it not being what the guidelines say. This has lead to swathes of changes to NZ article, not all of which are backed by the guidelines, nor wiki naming policy. If this is what you are saying, do you have any suggestions on how to remedy this problem? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

That is close to what I am saying, yes. I think more care needs to be taken when users propose or oppose changes to article titles to make sure that their arguments fall within the guidelines. I think NCNZ is a fine guideline, I'm just not sure it's always being followed correctly. Spekkios (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

My feeling is that examples "beyond mandatory official usage" would certainly include privately-owned news media, who are under no obligation to use offical Government names. So with Stewart Island / Rakiura, we can easily find examples of both names in a Stuff article, New Zealand Geographic, and the AA magazine. These seem like the sort of sources that should be cited as justification when moving an article to a dual name. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Naming Conventions NZ does not override Wikipedia's guidance on article titles, per Common Names. While poorly written to reflect it, NCNZ simply provides guidance on what a dual name is, and how to implement it if that name becomes the common name. See Official Names guidance for more detail. I suspect that too many people have seen Whakaari / White Island, and followed that decision as though dual names were now the default. What happened for that page was a unique case, where the dual name was used as the most logical disambiguation for the island (as there are plenty of White Islands out there), and should not be seen as a reflection on White Island's common name. (As an aside, I don't appreciate your trying to hide discussion away from the talk page, Somej, then commenting about me and not tagging me when it is relevant. I trust it was not your intention to keep me from participating in a discussion where my opinions would sit in opposition to your own, but you should avoid letting it appear that way.) — HTGS (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted Clutha River back to Clutha River / Mata-Au. The conversation above clearly indicates that the river meets the criteria for a dual name.ShakyIsles (talk) 08:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is about the general application of the NZNC policy, and does not serve as a resolution on the naming of specific pages. Please continue specific discussion of the Clutha River (Clutha River / Mata-Au) at the respective talk page. — HTGS (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

In addition to the usual problems with using something like Google Trends to determine commonality, dual names present even more issues with google trends by virtue of the names both being present in the dual name (eg. "Milford Sound" will include all use of "Milford Sound" and of "Milford Sound / Piopiotahi"), so all you're really able to find out with that is the reasonably unsurprising notion that the English name only is more prevalent than the Māori name only. With dual names, there's also the point that, despite some of the names being dual for decades, it's only recently that they've come into wider usage (see, for example, the comparison between this 2012 article which doesn't mention Piopiotahi at all, this 2017 article which mentions the Māori name and the origns behind it once, and this article from this month which uses the dual name consistently throughout,) and so search results which don't properly filter for recency will by definition show more usage of older names. To this end, I think WP:NAMECHANGES could be useful here even though it seems to be mainly catering to people who change their name. This gets more complicated again by the fact that the dual names usually have the old name still there, but I think an increased use in dual name or the Māori name should signify that a change is justified.

As far as your specific questions, I think the only official sources for names would be legislation (if applicable, such as treaty settlements) and the gazetteer - though I would also note that a lot of the place names on the gazetteer aren't actually official either, because apparently NZ has a lot of places that don't have any official name at all! Govt agencies and local govt are borderline, and I think whether it counts as official usage depends on the capacity it's being used. Something like public-facing information doesn't necessarily require the official name to be used (see for example the DOC page on Fox Glacier, not "Fox Glacier / Te Moeka o Tuawe"), while something like an official report or legal document would require the official name of the feature to be used and as such would constitute official usage. Media are definitely outside of that and are probably our best tool to determine something which is notoriously difficult and nebulous to determine. I think this leads into the second part of your questions, which is that everyday usage is incredibly difficult to define and can depend a lot on your circle. While you mention that you haven't heard dual names being used at all, my experience is that I almost exclusively hear dual names being used when they exist - though, I think the prevailing way that they're used in spoken English is to use either name interchangeably (eg. saying "Matiu" or "Somes Island" with equal frequency) instead of saying the full name (eg. "Matiu / Somes Island"). To this end, I think the use of the dual name in media (both news and magazines), as well as community groups in the area if applicable, is a better means than relying on hearsay of any given individual. This is not without its own issues too, as some instances (eg. remote mountains or passes) can often have seldom written about them (if anything) and make this difficult. Academic sources can sometimes help, and often reflect dual name usage as well.

As I mentioned above, I think the focus on WP:COMMONNAME is a bit of a red herring. There are other policies which dual names easily represent (eg. WP:PRECISION, WP:CONSENSUS), but even independently of this the naming conventions guidance means that WP:COMMONNAME isn't as important in this instance when there are specific conventions (such as WP:NZNC which deviate from it in an ordered way.) The guidelines state that, if a naming convention deviates from the common name, it must:

• Produce clear benefits outweighing the usage of common names: Using dual names helps to have a consistent approach to NZ place names and is consistent with the recent preference in favour of using official dual names across NZ. While I would argue that many of the dual names do meet common names, even those which don't still have the unofficial old name as part of it - I doubt anybody would get confused and think that "Clutha River / Mata-Au" is a different thing to "Clutha River". It also helps to distinguish in some instances from otherwise very generic names (see. Avon River / Ōtākaro or Whakaari / White Island).
• Follow a neutral and common convention specific to that subject domain: The dual place name articles follow the consistent convention of "Name1 / Name2", based on the order of the names in the official version (eg. "Milford Sound / Piopiotahi" with the English first, or "Whakaari / White Island" with the Māori first). This is true even when the official name uses parentheses, such as Lake Ellesmere / Te Waihora instead of Lake Ellesmere (Te Waihora).

Based on this, I maintain that dual names are fine and should be encouraged where they are an official or common name, and that at most we should be updating NZNC to have more clarity on when to move to a dual name instead of reverting to an outdated approach to these names. Turnagra (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I have begun discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand)#Dual names to establish clearly whether dual names should conform to common names policy. The two lines of opinion here seem to be that either A) common names should be preferred, or B) WP:NCNZ guidance does not explicitly say dual names should be common, and so they should not be. Hopefully discussion there can give us some consensus on at least this very specific application of policy. (I have added a secondary topic for discussion, but that is less pertinent to questions raised here, I think.) — HTGS (talk) 02:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Contributor Copyvio Investigation complete

Hello from CCI! A case recently closed surrounding New Zealand. A lot of the articles relating to NZ justice and politics contained copyvio, and I know of a few for sure that had the content chopped up. I wanted to bring this to your attention so you can reassess these articles and possibly rebuild them to their former status. Some links to help out and some I know got absolutely gutted:

• the CCI and its record of articles with copyvio.
• Bain family murders - Underwent significant content removal and a massive 1500 edit revdel.
• Kim Dotcom - Literally dragged to WP:CP as half of it was copyvio (12k bytes, yikes!)
• List of correctional facilities in New Zealand - Was told to bring to CP, had a lot of removal.

Again, I wanted to bring this to the project's attention, as many of these were B and C class articles. Thanks again and good luck, retsacennS (Talk) (Pain and Suffering) 04:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Kim Dotcom was not brought to WP:CP; I just obliterated 12k+ bytes of copyright violations. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The CCI link above should instead be to Contributor copyright investigations/Offender9000. There are 48 articles affected. Nurg (talk) 09:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Chris Amon

excuse me if I write in italian but my english is horrible..

se volete ampliare la sua voce, su it.wikipedia.org c'è qualcosa.. qui in Italia è stato considerato come pilota collaudatore migliore anche di Niki Lauda.. --2.226.12.134 (talk) 06:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I’ve dealt with it. Schwede66 16:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Promoting our public FB page Wikipedia Aotearoa New Zealand

For those who are Facebook users, please help promote our new public FB page: [Wikipedia Aotearoa New Zealand]

We want to use the public FB page to increase awareness of the great articles of specific interest to New Zealanders on Wikipedia, and to encourage more New Zealanders to become editors. If you haven’t done so already, please Like the new page.

You can help increase the reach of the page by sharing one of the great posts to your FB timeline, and adding a comment encouraging your followers to like the page so they get more posts like this in their news feed.Marshelec (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I commended the Facebook admins on their interesting and informative postings which will, I'm sure, encourage greater participation in and collaboration with Wikipedia. Well done! --Oronsay (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move for Manawatāwhi / Three Kings Islands

See Talk:Manawatāwhi / Three Kings Islands#Requested move 17 April 2021 if any project members are interested in participating. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Aotearoa New Zealand Wikimedia User group Meetup

The regular monthly meetup will be held virtually today the 25th of April at noon to 2pm New Zealand time. See this meetup page for details and the link to join. Hope you can make it. - Ambrosia10 (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Auckland meetup this Saturday - 1 May

Hi all, a reminder about an Auckland meetup happening this Saturday (1 May) at Auckland Museum. More details here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland_10. Jetaynz (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Editor publishing their own Flickr image

This edit adds a citation which is a Flickr image taken by the editor who made the edit. Opinions on wether this contravenes any Wiki guidlelines please. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I would classify that as a self published source. Ajf773 (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

It's a photo of a sign in Auckland Museum. As a reference, that is rather substandard, IMO. But one would assume that Auckland Museum based it on a reliable published source, so if such a source can be found, it can be put in as a replacement reference. As it happens we have several Wikipedians who work at the museum, including a Wikimedian, and they had an editathon on Saturday (see thread above), so maybe one of those attendees could help identify a source. Nurg (talk) 11:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello! (working at the museum) I'll take a look around, but it looks like the flickr source was there to back up the wording "strategic gift" and not any information or concepts. I can easily find sources that Ngāti Whātua invited the British to settle in Auckland because it was beneficial and strategic (in fact they're already there), and the Waitangi Tribunal does use the word gift. I'm not sure if gift is the best word - this is a rangatiratanga issue (how can something truly be a gift if your ongoing rights to the land were signed into law a few months earlier?). Having a look at the Deed of Settlement, there was an offer to settle, a sale (apparently for £341), an expectation of ongoing mutual reciprocity, and that Ngāti Whātua + British concepts of property were vastly different in 1840, and "gift" doesn't really capture that. --Prosperosity (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Jacinda Ardern

Jacinda Ardern, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Aircorn (talk) 11:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Meetup in Wellington 8 May 2021

A reminder that the Wellington Wikipedia Meetup will be happening tomorrow 8th of May at 10am NZ time. As usual we'll be meeting at the He Matapihi Molesworth Library at the National Library, corner Molesworth and Aitken Streets, Wellington. For more information see the meetup page. Hope to see you there. - Ambrosia10 (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC).

Auckland WikiCon 2021

Kia ora everyone, Just a quick note to let you know that the Auckland WikiCon event for 2021 is confirmed for the weekend of 17 - 18 July 2021. The event is being held in the Learning Labs of Auckland War Memorial Museum. Auckland WikiCon 2021 is a gathering for all new and experienced editors of Wikipedia, Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons. Anyone interested in editing can attend. This conference is organised by the Wikimedia User Group of Aotearoa New Zealand. It aims to provide training to new editors, encourage editors to learn new skills, to grow the Wiki community in Auckland, and have a fun weekend.

• Here is the Auckland WikiCon event page
• This is the link to register for the event https://auckland-wikicon-2021.lilregie.com/

Registration costs $10.

Einebillion (talk) 10:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Allied Press

Hi there, I am currently working on expanding the Allied Press and other related articles. I just had a question. For their list of newspapers and assets, should we just have a list with links to the articles? Or could I create a longish section with brief descriptions of their publications? Apart from the Otago Daily Times, Oamaru Mail, The Timaru Courier, The Ensign, Greymouth Star and The Star, the rest are redlinks. What's the best approach? I have worked on Are Media which has lists to separate articles. Any advice? Andykatib 10:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I suggest a few brief details about each newspaper. Date (or year) of first publication, and name at that time if it differs from the current name. Date acquired by Allied Press if not established by them. Date of closure if appropriate. Area of distribution if not obvious from the name, ie not needed for Hokitika Guardian, but is for Mountain Scene. Frequency of publication ie daily or weekly, which may have varied over its history. If there's an article on the newspaper which covers these details, then they could be very brief in the Allied Press article.-gadfium 18:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gadfium, thanks so much for your advice about creating sections. Apart from the few created articles, there is not a lot of content on the the other ones apart from their own websites and Allied Press. Having sections in the Allied Press article should suffice. Can work on the other ones that need references. Andykatib 03:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Anyone have any advice on the Wiki process for capturing and licensing an image of Allied Press's logo. All we have is the ODT building which wouldn't suffice? Even Stuff, New Zealand Media and Entertainment, TVNZ, and Newshub have their own logos on the Wiki articles. Find the uploading process too byzantine and complicated to understand. Andykatib 03:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Aotearoa New Zealand Wikipedia user group meetup

Just a reminder that the regular virtual monthly Aotearoa New Zealand Wikipedia user group meetup is happening today (Sunday 23rd of May) at noon New Zealand time. Feel free to join in. A link to the meeting can be found here Wikipedia:Meetup/Aotearoa New Zealand Online/12 - Ambrosia10 (talk) 22:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Fleur's Place (new article)

Hi all. I'm in the middle of pushing a draft on Fleur's Place in Moeraki, Otago, and someone has tagged it for tone. I actually disagree, but I would appreciate more eyes on it to at least double-check my work, as I don't want to just remove the tag.

As an aside, I suspect Fleur herself deserves an article (per WP:ANYBIO#1, Order of Merit), and although I'll personally start that task once the restaurant is done, someone else may want to get ahead of me. — HTGS (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

AsureQuality Limited

I'm wondering if anyone from WP:NZ has heard of AsureQuality Limited. The article states that the company is "owned" by the New Zealand Government; so, perhaps it's something that generate news coverage. The article had been tagged with {{Primary sources}}, {{More citations needed}} and {{More footnotes}} since 2014. Someone has been working on the article since the beginning of this month and seems to have addressed two of the issues; so, I've removed those templates. However, this person has only further increased the use of primary sources which show the company exists, but doesn't do much in terms of WP:NORG or WP:CORPDEPTH. I'm not familiar with the subject matter and googling doesn't come up with anything other than primary sources, but maybe I'm looking in the wrong place. If anyone can find some secondary sources and add them to the article, then perhaps the primary sources wouldn't seem so excessive. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The list of services also seems promotional.--IdiotSavant (talk) 05:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it does a bit. There are probably lots of issues with the article that need addressing. I'm not sure how much significant coverage in reliable sources state-owned companies tend to generate unless they get caught doing something they shouldn't be doing. I only came across the article via Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1111#how to resolve citation issues in the page? and the editor who posted that question is an WP:SPA whose only edits are related to that particular article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Dear all - yes this is a well known NZ quality assurance company (especially food assurance) of good reputation and standing. There website provides an accurate representation of their services. https://www.asurequality.com/— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pukateabob (talk • contribs) 10:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Their own website is a primary source that has limited use: what is needed is significant coverage in the types of reliable sources described here. There are lots of companies around the world with good reputations who have websites, but such companies need to meet WP:NORG. So, if you're aware any significant coverage in secondary reliable sources that the company has received outside of its own website or which goes beyond press release issued by the company, then feel free to add them to the article. If you're not sure how to do that, post them on the article's talk page and someone else will assess them and add them to the article if they can be used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Grant Guilford

Hi team, Grant Guilford's article has recently been expanded quite a lot by some users. I was wondering if some more seasoned edittors could have a look? I have some concerns about the length, and that most of it isn't about *his* actions, rather about the course of events that have happened at V̶i̶c̶t̶o̶r̶i̶a̶ University of Wellington. Thanks. Nauseous Man (talk) 07:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, the information that has recently been added is factual information about the things Guilford has led during his terms at Massey, Auckland and Victoria universities mainly drawn from audited annual reports and from media searches. Before this material was added, the earlier commentary looked like it may have breached Wikipedia policy on BLPs (e.g. see Writing style tone, balance, attack pages, reliable sources etc.). The added material gives balance without removing the critical material that was previously the mainstay of the prior commentary. Furthermore, review of the prior commentary revealed very selective negative commentary from many of the references used without attempt to provide any of the balancing information present in those same references. There were also a number of factual errors in the published Wikipedia article and the quoted references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pukateabob (talk • contribs) 11:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Nauseous Man: I believe situation has been resolved, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pukateabob. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Stuartyeates: Thanks! I thought something felt off.... Nauseous Man (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Aotearoa New Zealand Online meetup

A reminder that the Aotearoa New Zealand Online meetup is happening tomorrow Sunday June 20th at noon NZ time. See Wikipedia:Meetup/Aotearoa New Zealand Online/13 for more details including the link to join the meeting. - ~~~~ Ambrosia10 (talk) 07:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

NZ suburb infobox update

I've just made a few minor changes to spruce up Template:Infobox New Zealand suburb, mostly related to my comments from last year:

• The city it's a suburb for is now listed at the top alongside suburb (eg. it now says "Suburb of Christchurch")
• The map of NZ is no longer a default map so that city level maps can take priority
• There is a new section for the top level local authority (eg. making the distinction between Christchurch and Christchurch City Council)

Unfortunately something seems to be going weird with the last ones of these. In the one article I've updated to include a council section so far (Sockburn, New Zealand) it's coming up as a missing parameter despite being listed and hooked up in the main infobox page. Would someone with a bit more experience with infoboxes have time to take a look and see if you're able to discern what's going on? Turnagra (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Neils51 fixed it. There's a list of allowed fields passed to a checking function, and "council" needed to be added to the list.-gadfium 22:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Quick music question

I was working on a bit of music-related categorization today, and just have a quick question for the Kiwi contingent: what's up with all the articles in Category:New Zealand musical groups which just say that the topic is a band, while making absolutely no effort whatsoever to actually assign them any musical genre by which they could be filtered into an appropriate subcategory? Bearcat (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 July 20 § Henry Kulka images

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 July 20 § Henry Kulka images. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Upper South Island floods

I was wondering if it will be a good idea to create an article for the 2021 Upper South Island floods that hit the West Coast, Tasman District, and Marlborough Region in mid July. Wesport has been particularly hit hard, with many homes damaged and a lot of people homeless. For now, I have updated the List of natural disasters in New Zealand to include this event. Let me know what you think. Andykatib 01:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

This will have had plenty enough media coverage to meet GNG. Schwede66 02:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea! Possibly the name 2021 New Zealand floods might be better because Wellington was affected (though not as strongly) as well. There are a few similar articles like 2013 New Zealand winter storm which could act as good templates as well. --Prosperosity (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Schwede66 and Prosperosity, will work on this when I am free. Andykatib 03:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

University of Canterbury rewrite

Since April, SPA User:MitchellMatchbox (with minor help of a few IPs and other SPAs) has undertaken a more-or-less complete rewrite of University of Canterbury, and not for the better IMHO. The talk page is replete with other partisan attempts to rewrite the article. Does anyone have any insight into what's going on here? (I have a minor COI here) Stuartyeates (talk) 10:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Think there is quite a big issue when the university own website has been used a number of times as the reference to what's been added. Looks like it will need some clean up/reverting.— NZFC^(talk)(cont) 12:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit to add wow, looks like you almost have to go back to Schwede66 edit from July 2020 to see last good copy of the article before COI accounts and IP editing. Going to need some dedication to get through the fluff.— NZFC^(talk)(cont) 13:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi there User:MitchellMatchbox, sorry, I had a hopefully thought my edits were not partisan and that I had improved the University of Canterbury page for the better as looked rather bare beforehand IMHO. I would hope my hard work would not be reverted, but if we were to work together NZFC that we could clean it up so it met the standards of the wiki community. — User:MitchellMatchbox(talk) 14:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi User:MitchellMatchbox, thanks for engaging here. Could you clarify your relationship with University of Canterbury and also User:Claude12, User:Ethanbethan, User:DannyDLRFM, User:Cantabrian-nz, User:Emaljsc, User:Daffodealio, User:Donaldmatheson and User:Kit_kat_jenny?

I do not have a relationship with the University of Canterbury although I am from Christchurch, I also have no relationship to any of those other users — User:MitchellMatchbox 09:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I've made some changes, User:MitchellMatchbox already doesn't agree with some of them. I think anything further should be discussed on the talk page if anyone is interested. If others are unhappy with my edits that is ok too, but I tried to clean it up some and believe further discussion can be had. — NZFC^(talk)(cont) 23:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Federated Farmers

Hi there, I am thinking of expanding the Federated Farmers website drawing upon input provided by their former communications officer Shannon Gillies on the talk page. Was wondering if it will be safe to use these sources? Most of them link to reliable media and educational websites. Some of the information is out of date since it was written in 2019. Just wanted to get some advice before proceeding. I want to clarify that I have no links or connections to Federated Farmers or Shannon Gillies. Thanks. Andykatib 00:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I am willing to help with this, as a second reviewer/editor. The content offered on the Talk page looks reasonable to me, and the sources seem reliable, but as you say, it does need a bit of updating. I am happy to search out more recent news items, and add any particularly good citations into the list on the Talk page.Marshelec (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Marshelec, appreciate your help. Feel free to help in any way. Have been a bit busy but hope to get to this and the recent July wet weather article. Cheers. Andykatib 01:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The media officer is a v. dubious source. Better sources here https://teara.govt.nz/en/farmer-and-grower-organisations/page-2 remember that Federated Farmers is primarily a political / lobbying body and needs to be treated as such. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Stuartyeates, will exercise caution when it comes to choosing what sources. The media and government sources should be safe but it will also be good to use reputable sources like Te Ara and books found at Public Libraries. Cheers. Andykatib 03:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I gave a presentation to Federated Farmers in late January 2019, when Shannon was working for them, on what Wikipedia could and couldn't do. I made it clear none of them were to touch the Federated Farmers article, but could leave suggestions in the Talk page. The Fed Farmers comms team were all well-paid and experienced former journalists who wanted to "set the record straight about farming in NZ". I suggested they release a photo library to Commons, or sponsor a possible edit-a-thon event, but nothing came of it. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Christchurch location map

In updating the suburb pages for Christchurch, I've just noticed that the image for Christchurch's location map is over 11 years old and doesn't show any of the changes to the city since the earthquakes. I don't have the ability to whip up an updated version of the map myself, so I figured I'd post here in the hope that someone who does might feel like taking it on! Turnagra (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Turnagra, I can edit/create SVG maps but I don't know Christchurch well or what has changed, can you explain to me or show an example? — NZFC^(talk)(cont) 21:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

NZFC thanks for that - quite a bit has changed since the current map image. SH1 (the red road to the West) has a new alignment, as do the southern and northern motorways (google maps does a better job at showing it than I could by describing it. The urban area (grey on the map) has also changed quite a bit due to the redzoning around the eastern suburbs and expansion in the west - google also shows this reasonably well, which is helpful. I'd usually suggest the LINZ topo maps too, but they're not as helpful for urban areas and don't seem to have been updated since the new motorways were finished, which is approaching four years now. Turnagra (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Karmichael Hunt

I have nominated Karmichael Hunt for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Notice

Heads up. A RFC is taking place, which may affect New Zealand political articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Name of Cook Strait page recently changed

The page Cook Straight has recently changed to Te Moana-o-Raukawa / Cook Strait. While I was aware that North and South Island names were now officially completely bilingual, I was unaware of the Cook Strait situation. A quick search did not answer my question, but I am leaning towards it not being the case. For me to move the pages back would be a slow and messy process. The editor does not seem to have a talk page but other than that they seem ok. Dushan Jugum (talk) 07:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems the same user who moved it to the dual name has reverted the move - incidentally, according to official sources, Cook Strait doesn't have any official name! Turnagra (talk) 08:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I looked at the gazetteer independently, and also noticed that Cook Strait doesn't have an official name, and this was quite a surprise. I wonder why ?? Marshelec (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The system works, sorry for the overreaction. Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

There are lots of geographical features in the NZGB register that don't have an official name yet. Official names require consultation with all relevant iwi to make sure they agree on the meaning and spelling of the name. This is a slow process; a whole bunch of easy cases were resolved in 2019 (Taupō, Whakatāne, Tūrangi etc). And some official names were set decades ago and are now out of date and need to be revised. The macron debate made it clear that we get our spelling from the official NZGB name, and rely on common usage in reliable sources if there's no official name. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

For maritime regions, there is also the International Hydrographic Organization as an "official source". Though The Limits of Oceans and Seas is concerned more with boundaries than naming, are there other relevant documents? 3rd and draft-4th editions have "Cook Strait". ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 03:14, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Recent academic shenanigans

I've added some content to Elizabeth Rata and would welcome and independent eye. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

While mention certainly belongs in her article, and those of the other signatories to the letter, I wonder if the more detailed coverage should be moved to Māori science (which may perhaps be better titled Mātauranga Māori, currently a redirect).-gadfium 04:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

She has a pattern of writing such things... Stuartyeates (talk) 06:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it would be best to leave a summary behind, but copy all the detailed content about this latest controversy into Māori science (re-titled as proposed above). However, that article needs significant work and it's not my area of expertise. I could have a go, but it would need input from other editors.Marshelec (talk) 08:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

After reflection I've concluded that this should be put on in a Science and technology in New Zealand article, since putting it in Māori science or Mātauranga Māori frames it as a Māori problem rather than a racism problem. I'll get there. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Need more experienced insight into a page

Hi team. The page Iain Stables recently came under a fair bit of IP vandalism, so I successfully request a semi-protection request. In the most recent edit on the talk page, it turns out that the IP vandalism was being done by Stables himself (he put his text at the top of the talk page, unsigned, so I moved it into its own section and signed his post for him). He said he wants to delete the page. I was wondering if anyone could either look through the page and ensure it meets the policies on biographies of living people, or briefly audit that I've followed the proper processes? Nauseous Man (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

The suff IP was removing was sourced. Just because they don't like it doesn't mean it's not relevant. Guys made a career using shock and now upset that its permanently record in one place, so have little sympathy. Page looks from quick glance that it wouldn't be deleted because pass WP:GNG.— NZFC^(talk)(cont) 23:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Just my thoughts. If it meets GNG, it stays. If you don't like your past, well, I can't help. Schwede66 04:01, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Featured Article Review for Crusaders (rugby union)

I have nominated Crusaders (rugby union) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Bumbubookworm (talk) 00:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

RSN discussion on The New Zealand Herald

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Reliability of The New Zealand Herald. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

For people wondering, nothing has really brought this on to question the reliability of NZ Herald, OP wants to improve the links at {{Find sources}}. So is gaining confirmation that NZ Herald can be added to the list.— NZFC^(talk)(cont) 02:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

New Zealand Dominion Museum building

Why does the article about the building have the words New Zealand stuck in front of the name of the place? Eddaido (talk) 00:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I see that the Heritage New Zealand listing here [16] calls the building: "National Art Gallery and Dominion Museum (Former)". Also, I see that a search on WP for Dominion Museum leads to Te Papa Tongarewa, via a redirect. It seems to me that the article title "Dominion Museum" should be about the former building, and not Te Papa. My view is that the words New Zealand in front of the existing article title are not required, because there appears to be no need for disambiguation (and we would do this differently if there was a need for DAB). Marshelec (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

So I should start a name change process on the talk page? The Dominion Museum does currently have a redirect to Te Papa and I propose to turn that into an article about the venerable institution in its purpose built building which lasted from 1936 to whenever Te papa opened (1998) that's 60+ years. When I get around to trying to do that I would want to incorporate the story of the building somewhere deep down in the article. Are my colleagues happy with that? Eddaido (talk) 01:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I think you should wait for more opinions. Museums are not their buildings and vice versa, so I think the redirect of Dominion Museum to Te Papa might be appropriate. DrThneed (talk) 01:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I remember some of the published agonising over the content and style of Te Papa and I am sure the supervisory board (or whatever) would be more than irritated to learn a member of the public thought there was no discernible difference between the Dominion Museum and their Te Papa! Or do I misunderstand what you write? Eddaido (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Eddaido, yes you misunderstand me, I mean that a museum is an organisation. It can move from building to building while remaining the same museum. DrThneed (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

So I didn't misunderstand you, they are/were quite different museums. Enlightenment will come, well down the tunnel right now. Eddaido (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I suggest that Dominion Museum building would be an appropriate article title for the building. @Marshelec: I suggest that the majority of names used by Heritage New Zealand do not reflect the object's common name. Schwede66 01:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

On reflection, I think retaining "building" in the article title is fine, and is probably best, given that the building (a) previously housed separate national museum and art gallery organisations and (b) no longer serves either of those purposes.Marshelec (talk) 03:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Māori studies

Well beyond my expertise, but this is currently a redirect to New Zealand studies, which seems inappropriate (and is also under-developed). Anyone with some actual knowledge willing to take a stab at developing an article on what is now a significant academic discipline in NZ universities? --IdiotSavant (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Wellington Wikimedia meetup

The Wellington Wikimedia meetup is happening today (Saturday 28th 10am NZ time) and, as a result of the current Level 4 lockdown in New Zealand, this meeting will be virtual. See wikipedia:Meetup/Wellington/Meetup 28 August 2021 for more information and the link to the meeting. All participants in WikiProject New Zealand are warmly invited to attend. Ambrosia10 (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Allied Press logo

Hi there, I wanted some advice with uploading a copy of Allied Press' logo. Before I upload it, I just wanted to get advice on complying with copyright laws. Feel free to get in touch with me. Andykatib 08:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• Have added an image of Allied Press' logo. I consulted the NZME logo for the infobox and uploaded it as a non-free logo. Just wanted to check if I have complied with Wikipedia copyright requirements. Andykatib 09:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• That looks good. Can't spot any issues. Schwede66 09:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Schwede66. Glad I got my first image done the right way. Andykatib 10:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Kapiti Coast#Requested move 31 July 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Kapiti Coast#Requested move 31 July 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Template for Auckland?

There doesn't seem to be a navbox template for Auckland. Even the original Template:Auckland just redirects to WikiProject Auckland. Should we make one? I decided to start it off in a similar way to Template:Hamilton, New Zealand, on User:Qwertyxp2000/Template:Auckland, New Zealand. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 05:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure! We have a few already for subtopics, which should be linked in the template if we can (especially the volcanic field one). One for suburbs would be very helpful! --Prosperosity (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to edit at User:Qwertyxp2000/Template:Auckland, New Zealand at your own will. I welcome edits there. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 22:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Crikey. That is going to be one massive template. You sure? I'd keep templates for suburbs separate from the rest. I mean, every secondary school or composite school is notable; just look how long that list is all by itself. Schwede66 00:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Aye, I do think a separate Auckland suburbs template would suit better. But how would we put in Auckland suburbs without listing every single one of them on? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 00:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

At least for the just Auckland template that is. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 00:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

That's what you would do – list every single one of them. Schwede66 01:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

How about we just create a template for each local board of Auckland, e.g. {{Rodney Local Board Area}}, which can be put on the appropriate suburb and geography articles? I don't see the point of putting a huge template on every page relating to the city. A list of existing templates for Auckland is at Category:Auckland templates.-gadfium 02:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I envisage an Auckland template being much higher level, linking to List of suburbs of Auckland and List of schools in the Auckland Region rather than to individual suburb or school articles. Compare with {{New Zealand topics}} which links to major cities and the articles Regions of New Zealand and Territorial authorities of New Zealand rather than every region and district.-gadfium 03:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

{{Wellington, New Zealand}} is another example of a higher-level template.-gadfium 03:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Seems interesting. In my opinion, we could for now we get started with making a separate Template:Auckland suburbs to complete the missing Auckland templates. Or we could find a way to integrate the major Auckland suburban areas (e.g. Auckland Central, Manukau, North Shore, etc.) into the proposed single Auckland template, of which then its respective suburbs are mentioned for every Auckland suburban area? Actually, how big is the content that would be inserted into this theoretical Auckland template if using the existing Wellington template? Looks like the article for List of suburbs of Auckland just shows it is going to be quite big... The idea of making separate templates of local boards of Auckland sounds like it could work as a way to avoid overcongesting the sizes of the Auckland content. I'm no expert at Auckland itself, but I say that due to the complexity of the Auckland topic itself I would say it's a good idea to not chuck every single Auckland-related article stuffed into a giant-sized template. At the same time, it would be a good idea to find a way to connect major topics together of Auckland starting from one template without needing to just zoom around from template to template. For instance, we could just let the stuff about "list of schools" become placed under a child navbox boxy thingy that lists about community stuff in Auckland, rather than just plonking a pile of words of the exceedingly large amounts of schools in Auckland. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 09:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I've just made Template:Suburbs of Auckland, if that's of any use. —Hugh (talk) 03:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Application for Wikimedia Foundation Funding for Ambrosia10 to attend NDF2021

I thought I should let folk know here that I've applied for a rapid grant to attend the National Digital Forum Conference 2021. See here for the application. Information on this conference can be found here. Ambrosia10 (talk) 02:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Aotearoa New Zealand Online Meetup

Hi folks, just to let you know that the next Aotearoa New Zealand Online Meetup will be held on the 12th of September Sunday Noon until 2pm NZ time. Ambrosia10 (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Wētā Workshop

Of interest to those following recent macron discussions, I have requested the Weta Workshop article be moved to Wētā Workshop, discussion here. Quilt Phase (talk) 02:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support, everyone. Job done. Quilt Phase (talk) 07:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Consumer NZ review of Draft:Sticky Password

• "Sticky Password Premium". Consumer NZ. August 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Looking for this review to work on Draft:Sticky Password, does anyone here happen to have access? Thanks, Zetana (talk) 02:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Zetana: here you go, this is what it said. — NZFC^(talk)(cont) 21:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@NZFC: Thank you very much! Zetana (talk) 22:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Various dual place name move requests

Kia ora koutou - just a heads up that there are currently several move requests going on relating to the use of dual place names that could do with more people weighing in. They're listed up the top of this page, but are:

• Talk:Fox Glacier
• Talk:South Cape (New Zealand)
• Talk:Riverton, New Zealand
• Talk:Port Pegasus
• Talk:Paterson Inlet
• Talk:Lords River
• Talk:Moeraki Boulders
• Talk:Southern Alps
• Talk:Lyttelton Harbour
• Talk:Franz Josef Glacier
• Talk:Cape Kidnappers
• Talk:Clutha River
• Talk:Hauraki Gulf

Would be great to get thoughts from some more WPNZ people to help establish consensus! Turnagra (talk) 04:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand) just found this wish I had seen it earlier. Dushan Jugum (talk) 08:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

FoP-New Zealand and "Quasi"

The Hand, Christchurch NZ

Would anyone have an opinion on whether images of Ronnie van Hout's sculpture "Quasi", on public display in Christchurch from 2016 to 2019 and now on public display on top of the City Gallery, Wellington would be covered by FoP-New Zealand if placed on Commons? Quilt Phase (talk) 08:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I uploaded this file because in my view, FOP applies as it’s quasi-permanent. Schwede66 18:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Schwede66: ISWYDT and thanks. Quilt Phase (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand) has an RFC

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand) has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Spekkios (talk) 10:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

New Zealand editors contributing to WiR Ada Lovelace Day Edit-a-thon

The Women in Red WikiProject is celebrating Ada Lovelace Day—12 October—with a round-the-clock online edit-a-thon. New Zealand editors are organising part of and assisting with this event. See this event page for more information and please let interested folk know and of course feel free to contribute! Ambrosia10 (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

We are all online for this event. You can join an experienced editors 'room' to share editing questions and discuss content. We also have a tearoom for chatting to others. There is a 12 Noon 'learn how' session and another one at 2.30pm catering from absolute beginners through to advanced beginners. Please register through Eventbrite in the project page for access to the online link. Pakoire (talk) 04:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Aotearoa New Zealand Online Meetup

Reminding folk that the next Aotearoa New Zealand Wikimedia Online meetup will be tomorrow the 10th of October starting at noon. See Wikipedia:Meetup/Aotearoa New Zealand Online/17 for more information and the link to the meeting. Ambrosia10 (talk) 08:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Rainbow Labour into New Zealand Labour Party

The Rainbow Labour article has many problems, and I wonder if it would be better to delete it, and merge the contents into New Zealand Labour Party#Organisation. What is everyone's thoughts? Nauseous Man (talk) 03:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure it could be improved! There must be plenty of good sources out there to fix the issues with the article. - there should be a lot of into in Express, and I remember there was some international press in the last election around electing the largest number of LGBTQ+ politicians globally. --Prosperosity (talk) 03:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

It is not great, there are at least two mentions[17], but I could find no articles in detail. I agree they must be out there, but I can't find them.Dushan Jugum (talk) 04:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Prosperosity: I've had a look, but many of the claims made don't have citations readily available. There are one or two citations, but broadly most of it isn't connected to Rainbow Labour. Nauseous Man (talk) 05:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not sure if most of the content can be kept, but this source for Rainbow Labour is reasonably pretty detailed. Most news/scholarly sources I'm finding are in passing ([18][19]), and there almost definitely was more content at gaynz.com before it closed down ([20][21][22][23]), some sources talk about the organisation but not by name (eg "labour's rainbow MPs" "labour's rainbow caucus"). I'll have another look later and see what I can dredge up through web.archive.org, but if there aren't enough sources it might be better to retool the article to be about the Rainbow Caucus in general. --Prosperosity (talk) 05:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Starting to look good. Clarification is "Rainbow Labour" the same as "labour's rainbow MPs" and "labour's rainbow caucus" which I take as just descriptors. Put another way is it possible to be gay, out, a member of Labour and not in "Rainbow Labour". It does seem that many refs are not caring about the difference (which may not exist). Dushan Jugum (talk) 06:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Rainbow Labour is constitutionally a "Special Branch" of the Labour Party, the same as New Zealand Young Labour. I think the problem with finding good reliable information is as Prosperosity notes, most sources don't really talk about Rainbow Labour as an organisation, instead of gay and lesbian MPs. I'm happy to not merge it, and work on fleshing it with citations, I just wanted to know wider thoughts on the matter! Nauseous Man (talk) 06:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Here are a few primary sources: archived website and the press releases on scoopChris Carter's valedictory statement. From the websites and press releases, there are some sources for official lists of the members of Rainbow Labour (vs. members of labour in the rainbow community) from 1999-2017, as well as details on other associated members such as council members, executive team of Rainbow Labour (eg here from 1999), etc. Will keep digging for older secondary sources! --Prosperosity (talk) 02:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Dollar symbol and MOS requirement to identify dollar except US dollar

MOS:CURRENCY guidance is "In general, the first mention of a particular currency should use its full, unambiguous signifier" such as NZ$. There is an exception for "articles entirely on US-related topics" that can use $. Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Why doesn't first mention of U.S. money have to have "US" put in front of it?--Melbguy05 (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC); edited 12:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Anyone want to take a look at Kuranui College

User @Radiogaga1984: has added a lot of content but I'm not 100% on the content let alone the sources being used like the school's own newsletters and then you have a lot of recent content. It's like if the school has ever been mentioned, it has been added. Not sure if I its all ok or my feelings that it needs reculling are correct. — NZFC^(talk)(cont) 07:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Mihi/pepeha

Is there really no article for mihi/pepeha?  Nixinova   T   C   06:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Apparently not... Dracophyllum 06:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

There isn't one for Whaikōrero either, but that would be a better topic than "mihi". Nurg (talk) 06:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

CHCH border towns / suburbs?

I'm currently going through Template:Christchurch to help fix up some of the suburb pages / add missing info and whatnot, including making sure that all of the suburbs are using the NZ suburb infobox. I've come across a couple of edge cases (no pun intended) which I wanted to get some other opinions on. The navbox for Christchurch suburbs currently includes areas that are within the jurisdiction of Christchurch City Council but are generally treated as separate towns or areas, including:

• Banks Peninsula
• Kainga
• Templeton
• Paparua
• Lansdowne, Christchurch
• Spencerville, New Zealand
• McLeans Island

My question with these is how they should be treated, given the line between suburb and satellite town can be blurry at times. Yaldhurst was considered a satellite town until recently, while Brooklands is treated like a suburb despite being further out than Spencerville. Any thoughts on how to marry these up would be appreciated - my gut is to treate all of them other than Templeton and Banks Peninsula as suburbs, but absolutely open to different interpretations. There's also the question of whether some of them should be in the navbox at all - Lyttelton, despite being under Christchurch City Council also, isn't included. Perhaps Templeton and the peninsula could be removed for a consistent approach? Turnagra (talk) 09:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

In my view, this discussion should be had at Template talk:Christchurch as there are already discussions on related matters. Can you please move the above questions to there, Turnagra? And yes, it would be good if others could chip in. Schwede66 19:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fair - was hoping that posting here might get a bit more engagement, but will move the discussion there! Turnagra (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)