Wikipedia

Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 30

< Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Quilt Phase in topic Requested move 27 December 2021 - "NZ Transport Agency" to "Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency"
Archive 25←Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32→Archive 35

Katy Soljak

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Anyone interested in creating a biography of the painter/singer Katy/Katie Soljak who has cropped up in the article on Miriam Soljak. She seems noteworthy enough to warrant an article but pop singers are not my speciality.--Ipigott (talk) 11:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

She appears non-notable per WP:SINGER—at least from a cursory search. A role of thumb I’ve developed for people is that if their LinkedIn shows up on the first page of Google they’re likely not notable, but even after more digging, virtually nothing that comes up is independent. This would work, but even it is a bit sparse, and certainly doesn’t hit SIGCOV by itself. — HTGS (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Clean-up of main page

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In updating the Pages needing work section on the main page for WPNZ, I noticed earlier that there were quite a few articles which don't necessarily still need to be on the list in my view - but which I'm also not confident enough in my judgement to remove. I think it could be good at some point for us to try and have a clean up of the main page, beyond this there are also a few red links (such as the location maps and some stub categories) and an empty monthly collaboration which we could probably stand to update. Turnagra (talk) 08:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I've gotten rid of two which definitely didn't need work anymore - feel free to remove more! I actually don't know if anyone works on this list at the moment. --Prosperosity (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Suburbs of Auckland vs. Populated places in the Auckland Region

Latest comment: 3 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

I have a bit of a tautological problem with Auckland (which I assume is an issue for our other major city articles, too). There are two categories describing suburbs/surrounding towns in the Auckland Region:

Category 1 is a nice place for suburbs such as Avondale and Ōtāhuhu, while category 2 is a nice place to sort articles on places that are in the Auckland Region, but have little to do with the city (e.g. Te Arai, Claris, Waiuku). However, as you get closer to the city, I'm not sure if there is a definite way to sort Suburbs from Populated places. The category currently describes it as 'Districts within the Auckland metropolitan area', but doesn't really define this well. Clevedon feels like it should be a populated place, but people definitely use it as a suburb and commute to Auckland. Kumeū has a long historical standing as its own township, but recently the population has exploded with people using the town as a suburb. Describing Orewa or anything on the Hibiscus Coast as an Auckland suburb feels extremely wrong to me, but some people definitely commute from there to Auckland central daily.

Does anyone have any ideas on how these two categories can be better defined and used? Should I just add Category:Populated places in the Auckland Region to every suburb article? --Prosperosity (talk) 07:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it will always be an evolution as many inner suburbs of Auckland started out as villages. Is there any harm in putting uncertain locations in both categories, if we are unsure, chances are readers will be too. All the official distinctions I can think of have no obligation to fit with everyday usage and the media seemed erratic. Dushan Jugum (talk) 08:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
The New Zealand Geographic Board decides what's a suburb and what's not and what it is to be called. Its hard to deal with because all it ever does as a board is meet once in a while and make some decisions. I think it might be administered by Lands and Survey I just gave up my enquiries because no one could find me an administrator. I'm sure there are others here who know more than that. Hope this helps. Eddaido (talk) 08:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Prosperosity, I'm inclined to use the Auckland "major urban area" boundary, as defined by Statistics New Zealand under the Statistical Standard for Geographic Areas 2018 (SSGA18), rather than the functional urban area, AKA commuting zone. These concepts are mentioned at Auckland#Scope. Apart from it just seeming like the appropriate basis, it has the advantage that there is no debate about the boundary, as Stats NZ sets it for us. To see the boundary, try this (maybe there's a better way): go to https://statsnz.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=6f49867abe464f86ac7526552fe19787, tick the 'Urban Rural' box in the layer list on the right, then zoom in. You should see the blue boundary for the "major urban area", the purple boundaries for the "rural settlements" (such as Clevedon), black for separate "small urban areas" (such as Kumeū-Huapai) and reddy-brown for the separate "large urban area" of Hibiscus Coast. Nurg (talk) 09:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I think that's probably the best definition that we can get, thank you! (although I have some qualms - why is Laingholm in the city but Parau not, when they're both extremely rural?), especially since it's something that will dynamically update over time.
The only major issue I'd have using this is that their urban/rural borders don't correspond to suburb/locality borders. This is fine for an area that is primarily settled (eg calling Long Bay a suburb), but it feels odd for Karaka or Drury, which have urban parts contiguous to the rest of Auckland, but are 90% rural farms. Should there be a cut-off for cases like Karaka and Drury, until more of their areas are developed? --Prosperosity (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Alright, I've recategorised everything within the SSGA18 boundaries in the suburb category, and everything outside the populated places cat. I had four exceptions which I didn't really know what to do with, due to the problem above (predominantly rural areas, with small patches within the Auckland urban boundary: Drury, New Zealand, Karaka, New Zealand, Ōpaheke and Swanson, New Zealand - these I put into both categories. --Prosperosity (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
This is a fairly similar topic to the one I raised at Template talk:Christchurch#Outlying suburbs - I'm not quite sure where to draw the line on these but would be keen to hear any consensus that comes out of it! Turnagra (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
The geographic boundaries in the SSGA18 seem to work reasonably well for Christchurch as well (although with a few caveats where I'd like to understand their working - why is Prebbleton out but Templeton in? And not just urban Templeton, but a lot of surrounding farmland - apparently this counts as urban Christchurch??) What's your opinion? --Prosperosity (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
The difference between Templeton and Prebbleton is that the former belongs to Christchurch City and the latter to Selwyn District. Schwede66 20:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I see! That's interesting, because suburban Waiheke isn't considered a part of Auckland in the SSGA18, even though it was a part of the old Auckland City. --Prosperosity (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Aotearoa New Zealand Online Meetup

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This meetup is happening virtually on Sunday the 7th of November from Noon until 2pm NZST. The link to attend the online meetup is given in the meetup page. Any Wikimedian working on New Zealand content is very welcome to attend. Ambrosia10 (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Multiple Article Title Changes

Latest comment: 3 years ago43 comments10 people in discussion

Due to the recent RfC [1] I have gone through many of the articles that have had their name changed using the removed guideline and reversed the changes. Because the article titles were originally moved unilaterally and were not discussed prior to their move I have not created move requests on their talk pages. I have also started a number of move requests for article name changes that did have discussion but primarily used the now-removed guideline. These are:

Note that I haven't listed the articles I have changed myself due to the sheer number of original moves that were done without any discussion. --Spekkios (talk) 02:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

What is the correct process here? Just because we got rid of the paragraph doesn't mean we should just change them all to the English only name. It means we rely on other Wikipedia guidelines. Shouldn't we be going through individual move requests for each of these? ShakyIsles (talk) 08:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • This seems a lot like you're trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS (or at least what you see as a great wrong) - these should have been move requests, especially instances where the article has been at a dual name for years. I'm surprised you didn't try to revert Aoraki / Mount Cook and Whakaari / White Island too Turnagra (talk) 08:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Turnagra:, This isn't even close to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and I would advise you read the guideline. All of the moves I have made have been have had no discussion and have only cited the removed gudieline. I see no reason to discuss a move when the original move was not discussed in the first place, and the guideline cited for such moves no longer exists. --Spekkios (talk) 08:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • You've changed dozens of article titles within hours of the RfC being closed, with little regard for the merits of an individual title beyond the slash in their names. That pretty strongly hints at a general disdain for dual names instead of actually wanting what's best for Wikipedia. Turnagra (talk) 08:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • That clearly untrue though. As I stated above the Mount Aspiring / Tititea was moved 12 years ago before even the Dual Name conventions existed. The article has been there uncontested for all that time. I'm happy if we open move requests on some of the recent more dubious moves that have only cited the policy. Moving dozens in one go when this wasn't discussed at the Rfc seems brash or even not WP:GOODFAITH. ShakyIsles (talk) 08:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Turnagra: please keep in mind WP:GOODFAITH. All of the moves I've made have only cited the guideline as their original move. @ShakyIsles: I checked every article before I moved it for a reason other than the old guideline. It is possible I may have made a mistake with one or two articles, but I assure you that the only articles moved have been the ones that have cited the old guideline or similar without any discussion.--Spekkios (talk) 08:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I find it difficult, as @ShakyIsles: has said, to assume good faith when you have made such a brash and sweeping move without any regard for the validity of the name. In the context, it shows little to no regard for the merits of individual cases and instead focuses only on the fact that they are dual names which you seem to have some form of blanket opposition to. Turnagra (talk) 09:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Which is it, did he move them with no regard for their individual merit or is he moving them with political intent. Do you want 100 discussions or for him to have waited a respectful amount of time, then done the same thing anyway? If I was on the other side I would be pissed off too, but explain what he did wrong. A rule was made the pages were moved, the rule was deleted, the pages were moved back. Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why you think those are mutually exclusive - the intent seems to be around dual place names generally, so the moves were made in bulk with no regard for whether an article merited being at its dual name simply because that name had a slash in it. Turnagra (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The only reason for the move was the expired guideline. I checked every single move I made. That's how I know that I have made the same regard for the name as the orignal mover did, as in these examples: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. Given that the original mover did not cite any sources nor reference any discussion on the move topic and only cited the removed guideline (without proving evidence as to why the move was needed) I see no reason why the moves I have made are in bad faith. --Spekkios (talk) 09:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • There are still guidelines for Dual place names at WP:NCNZ. We removed one paragraph. We can still have dual named articles. Mainly of the references to the guidelines are referring to the naming structure which is still there.ShakyIsles (talk) 09:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Also, if a name change was made without much/any discussion then it obviously wasn't contentious. Why would we change these in bulk now?ShakyIsles (talk) 09:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what the formatting guidelines have to do with this conversation. I have certainly not moved every single article with a dual name. Just because a move was made and wasn't contested doesn't mean the article becomes immune from change later. --Spekkios (talk) 09:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • A move being undiscussed doesn't mean that subsequent moves should also be undiscussed if there is interest in it. You made a number of these moves by claiming that they would be uncontroversial, which is blatantly false and misled DrVogel (talk · contribs) into making the changes without due process. Turnagra (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I see no reason to discuss moves for so many small articles, especially because the original move was not discussed in the first place. At no point have I misled anyone; I have very clearly explained my rational for doing these moves, including right here. --Spekkios (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Many of these cited the guidelines for formatting. The original move to a dual name was more a different reason then the pages were moved to a different formatting e.g. Waihemo / Shag River that was moved to a dual name with brackets for disambiguation reasons and discussed in the edit notes. the guidelines were cited later when the page was moved to the formatting with the dash. You've ignored this discussion and reverted it along with many other moves that that were made for more subtle reasons.ShakyIsles (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • None of those cited the guidelines for formatting. They cited the guideline for moving the article to a dual place name; all of the above were moved to a dual place name. The moves were undiscussed and without supporting evidence. --Spekkios (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Slavery wasn't contentious for most of recorded history, so why did people bother abolishing it? Just because something has been in place for a long time doesn't make it right. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • ShakyIsles, I do not want to take this discussion off course, but how do you know that Mount Aspiring / Tititea is undoubtedly the common name, what criteria have you used? Where are your reliable secondary sources? A quick look at the Mt Aspirin article shows nine sources: one is primary official data, two I cannot read, and six, that are reliable secondary sources, refer to just Mt Aspirin. (And they are all fairly recent sources too.) Based on that, Mt Aspirin is the common name, period. Your statement is nothing more than your opinion. It does seem to me that so much of the problem we are having throughout these endless placename discussions is because some editors are simply not following basic wiki rules and go out of their way to try to show why NZ is different and why their opinions aren't really opinions but can sort of be justified if we turn a blind eye here and stretch a point there. Anyway, back to undoing the title changes made recently. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • It isn't the way I would have done it - I was planning to do one very large RM for all the moves I considered uncontroversial - but now that it is done, I would ask that you only move articles back that have a SNOWBALLS chance of keeping their current title after a RM, rather than wasting a lot of time. BilledMammal (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • To summarise what has happened here, Spekkios has made almost 200 page moves in the span of two hours citing the changes following the recent Rfc. Spekkios has done this wide reaching change with zero consultation impacting many pages.
The Rfc decided to remove a paragraph from WP:NCNZ. Removing a particular standard across dual named place names in NZ and instead rely on wider naming conventions across. The Rfc implied that there shouldn't be a standard approach and pages should be dealt with on a case by case basis and we should look at guidelines across wikipedia to determine the name of each. With no consultation Spekkios ignored this and hurried through almost 200 changes without considering them on a case by case basis.
I believe these changes should all be reverted and we should deal with each page name on a considered one by one basis not a blunt mass move.ShakyIsles (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Tautoko ShakyIsles' call above to revert the recent changes by Spekkios and deal with each on a case-by-case basis. This has been based on a fundamental misunderstanding by Spekkios of the RfC outcome. Turnagra (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't know. Some were literally just moved citing the guideline. For example Sutherland Sound[15]. While fine at the time moving them back now as that by itself is no longer valid seems reasonable. Actually a lot were.[16] Anything that has been stable at the dual name for some time (two years?) or was moved as a result of a requested move should undergo a requested move. I would also prefer the RMs split up as some of the bundled ones bundle too much together. Aircorn (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia guidelines have been used for these moves so I'm not sure what you are claiming that I am ignoring. At no point did the RfC imply that every single article with a dual name required a discussion before moving. That is not Wikipedia policy at all. All of the moves that I have made have had past moves citing the removed guideline for moving the article to a dual name. All of those moves were done without discussion or source material to support a move. None of the article moves were done referencing any other policy or guidelines, which is and always has been required. I have not moved any article that was initially written with a dual name or has a dual name as a result of a move request. For some of those I have started move requests above, for others I have not as the consensus for those articles strongly favours dual names.
Furthermore, I find it extremely hypocritical that the same two users that are upset about a unilateral move without discussion have also in the past made unilaterally moves without discussion. In addition to the articles above which were moved by Turnagra ShakyIsles was responsible for [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30][31][32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44]. None of these were discussed or used reference material. The only guideline used was the now removed guideline without reference to any other policy or guidelines. To claim now that there is an issue with the moves I have made is blatantly dishonest considering that both users in the past have had no issue with making unilateral undiscussed page moves. To require so many pages to go through a move request due to the changed guideline, especially when the guideline was the only reason for the original move is impractical and unnecessary.--Spekkios (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, both Turnagra and I have moved pages in the past. If you look at the edit history these were moved one by one and were considered often along side other edits to the pages. We both have significant histories of editing pages of NZ geographic features. When moving pages, even when WP:NCNZ was cited, that doesn't automatically mean the move didn't meet other Wikipedia guideline such as WP:COMMON and WP:NCGN. You have moved these pages and over 100 others. Its clear you haven't considered the intricacies of each move when you've rushed through these without any prior discussion all in under two hours. If these do need to be moved then it should be a considered process and each individual page should be treated on its merits with room for discussion on each talk page.
I want to add that I'm not opposed to moving some pages to an English only name. Some cases of dual names are unwieldly and not common but many others make sense to be at the dual name. We shouldn't be making mass edits like this without looking at each feature and fully understanding the history that lead to the move decision.ShakyIsles (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • If there are other policies that support the move then those should have been included in the summary. If the move is supported by WP:UCRN then there should be evidence in the summary or the talk page to support it. There is no evidence that the users instigating the original moved did so in a considered process, treated the article name on it's own merits, or discussion on the relevant move page. It is impossible to "fully consider the history" because there is simply no history to review, except for the citation of an outdated policy. I would also like to add that I am not against dual names being used when there is sufficient evidence to support it. None of the articles I have moved have that evidence (or any for that matter). --Spekkios (talk) 23:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • As ShakyIsles (talk · contribs) says, our approaches were not even remotely similar to what you've done and it's a pretty big false equivalence to insinuate otherwise. I started using undiscussed moves after making several unanimous move requests for shifts to dual names, and that these were always done in the same consideration as those. They were also usually done alongside other improvements to the article with a goal of improving the accuracy and coverage of wikipedia, especially for New Zealand places which are overlooked. Your recent actions have instead decided to take a slash-and-burn approach to this, reverting years of progress for some sort of bizarre aversion to dual names (as an aside, I would like to drill down into that and figure out what your actual aversion to these is, independent of any attempt to base it in wikipedia policy). In each of our moves, which were done individually and in accordance with the guidelines of WP:BOLD and the WP:RM process, there was also plenty of time for people to object and proper process followed. Indeed, that ended up happening a few times (such as with Kārewa / Gannet Island, where my undiscussed move was reverted and a move request opened). Nothing that either of us did was untoward, and we were always happy to engage if our move was challenged. This would be the correct approach now that your moves have been challenged - revert them and take out proper move requests in good faith, instead of accusing us of hypocrisy when the actions don't even compare. Turnagra (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I assume you are talking about the requests you posted in Kārewa / Gannet Island. Many of those comments across all moves cite the old guideline that has been removed. Consensus for removing that guideline was discussed in the RfC. Consensus was established for using normal Wikipedia policy and guidelines for article moves. Because that consensus was established I see no reason why the articles should not be moved to the name they had before the old guideline was cited for their move.
No article content was modified, so whatever progress you are referring to has been kept intact. Whatever "bizarre aversion" you think I have does not exist. I have made my thoughts quite clear in the RfC.
I am not going to revert the articles. This conversation has existed for a day and a half now and the only objection has been from you and ShakyIsles. Given that the only objection has been from you two, and a recent RfC was held on this issue, and the only cited reason for the original moves was the removed guideline, I see no reason to revert the articles. --Spekkios (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • From what I can gather, the extent of your argument is that you don't think dual names adhere to wikipedia guidelines (which is usually wrong, but whatever - that's not the point) but this still doesn't answer my original question. Nobody is this passionate about enforcing wikipedia guidelines to such a ridiculous level, which makes me think that you've got some sort of reason independent of the guidelines that you don't like dual names. Having a discussion at this level is useful to get a better understanding of what's actually going on. The only argument from you I can see that isn't based exclusively in wikipedia guidelines seems to be that we shouldn't trust the media, which seems to run contrary to your own move requests as well but anyway.
At any rate, this entire ordeal has left a bad taste in my mouth with the atrocious takes from some users and the low-key racism from others, so I think I'll take a break from this place for a bit and let you damage the legitimacy and accuracy of this website in peace. Turnagra (talk) 08:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • That is a complete misrepresentation of my argument. My argument has not, and has never been, that dual names don't adhere to Wikipedia guidelines or policy. My argument has always been that many of the moves to dual names have not been done in accordance with those guidelines and policy. I made that very clear in my RfC post where I argued that the old guideline was blatantly overused and due to it's vague wording almost always conflicted with general Wikipedia guidelines and policy. Note that despite the RfC running for over 30 days and having nearly as many commenters exactly zero people challenged any of my arguments directly.
My statement on the media is also taken completely out of context, as that was in the context of a discussion which included the old guideline. My point there was an early revision of what would become my RfC argument: that any usage outside of mandatory usage is an incredibly low bar. I've bought this up before, but you continue to conflate arguments against the guideline as some sort of argument against dual names everywhere. That is simply not true and never has been.
You've also had this explained to you before, but literally no one', even people who have continuously argued against moves and in favour of removing the guideline is against dual names as a concept. Whatever "bizzare aversion" or "independent reason" you think I have is purely imaginary and a construction of your own mind. I can't argue against figments of your own imagination, so if you think I have some ulterior motive please just come out and say whatever you think it is.
Finally, I'm sorry that you think that someone properly enforcing the policy and guidelines on this website is "ridiculous" or somehow damaging "the legitimacy and accuracy" of Wikipedia. This website runs on it's consensus-driven policy and your personal opinions about what is accurate or legitimate do not override what the consensus is. My "passionate" enforcing is in response to a series of lax enforcement and blatant overuse of a guideline that never actually had wide consensus in the first place. --Spekkios (talk) 09:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for my absence; I've been moving house. I concur with Turnagra and ShakyIsles that the mass moves by Spekkios leave a bad taste. Those actions are not justified as an outcome of the recent RfC. Schwede66 20:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Schwede66. In short, was it tactless? yes. But why was it wrong? If you want to slap Spekkios with a wet bus ticket I am onboard, if you want 200 page move debates where the benefit of the doubt is defined by a rule we no longer use, I am not. Dushan Jugum (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Slap with a wet bus ticket is red linked, I am disappointed. Dushan Jugum (talk) 00:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
While I can concede that the moves jumped the gun I simply cannot agree that the result is contrary to the RfC result. The only clear result of the RfC was to remove the guideline; the only moves I have made are reversions of moves that only cited the removed guideline. I see zero practical or policy-based reason why the moves should not have been made. As far as I am aware, any of my moves that have been considered undue have already been reverted or changed. --Spekkios (talk) 22:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
I have been involved in a few heated drawn out discussions on Wikipedia over the relatively short time I have been involved in the project and this one seems unhealthily civil in comparison to others. I can only recall having to rap one editor over the knuckles for ignorant incivility. When my own shortcomings are pointed out to me it often feels as though the other person is more upset for mentioning it than I am for receiving it. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Oscar Garden

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Kia ora, I've added a WP:NPOV banner to Oscar Garden if anyone would like to contribute or help find some sources to add to the final paragaph. It possibly falls into a COI but I wasn't sure. Garden is notable but the article needs some tidying up! Thanks! Susan Tol (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Lexie Matheson

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. I have submitted Draft:Lexie Matheson for review. I'd be grateful for any eyes to go over it! Nauseous Man (talk) 07:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

also this is my first page creation, so please be nice ha. Nauseous Man (talk) 08:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Can you find a better reference than David Farrier's blog? Personal blog sites are not regarded as reliable sources. --Gertrude206 (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
@Gertrude206: done! Thank you. Nauseous Man (talk) 01:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Sue Grey

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've started Sue Grey (lawyer), but there's still work to be done: her support for medicinal cannabis, the Saxmere Case, her anti-5G activism, and the recent complaint to the Law Society. Plus we could do with an openly-licensed photo. Any assistance appreciated (and if anyone wants to put in a DYK that would be grand) —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 04:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Māori wards and constituencies

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Establishing an incorporated society to support Wikimedia in Aotearoa New Zealand

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Following general interest and support during 2021 for forming an incorporated society to promote and support the work of the Wikipedia Aotearoa New Zealand User Group, a sub-committee of the User Group has drafted a constitution for such a society. This draft is open to comments (add comments to the document; ping MurielMary if there are any issues with the link or navigating the document) until the end of Sunday 12 December 2021. Link below: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GMXcv2kzZnYe6UpxSNvnlsdKi429nouazGSm9hjuL7s/edit?usp=sharing MurielMary (talk) 09:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Party preference graph

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Continued to look. I now believe this is caused by the November poll not showing on te graph, even though it appears tobe in the underling data. Can this graph be updated with the lastest poll results please. This comment supercedes my comments below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.242.24.107 (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

This graph is incorrectly rendering at least two data points.

The graph shows one Labour poll point at around 43% when it should be 41%. The graph is showing two Roy Morgan polls in October when one should be October and one should be September. Combined these errors will bias the Labour trend line high.

Also the graph shows two poll points at around 26% when one should be at 28%. Again one the graph shows two Roy Morgan polls in October when it should show one in October and one in September. Combined these errors will bias the National trend line low.

Thus all errors, the Labour point error, the National point error, and the timing errors all bias the trend line in Labours favour and againts Nationals. Is this deliberate? If not surely the bias should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.242.24.107 (talk) 01:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

[45] It is not showing two polls in October, are you actually looking at the graph. Quit whining about nonexistent bias about a graph thats out of date by not even a day when you're not even looking at said graph properly.  Nixinova   T   C   02:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Brad Olsen

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Would Brad Olsen pass WP:GNG?  Nixinova   T   C   04:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Nixinova, ha ha. I always wondered why that fella looks so baby-faced and now I know - he's only 23! With the external links in that article (strange that a couple to the Northern Advocate are 404s), you have plenty enough to show GNG. If not sure, prepare an article in draft space and I or someone else can look over it before it goes to mainspace. Schwede66 06:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm gonna declare a COI here, because I taught Brad in his undergrad - which now makes me feel old. But I agree with the above, I think make one in the draft space and you'll get a fair bit of feedback that way. Nauseous Man (talk) 07:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Wellington and Christchurch archives

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please note that I have added the default ClueBot III to the Wellington and Christchurch talk pages, as they were both quite long. --Spekkios (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Aotearoa New Zealand Online Meetup

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This meetup is happening virtually on Sunday the 5th of December from Noon until 2pm NZST. The link to attend the online meetup is given in the meetup page. Any Wikimedian working on New Zealand content is very welcome to attend. Ambrosia10 (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Use of macrons in historical articles

Latest comment: 2 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

Hi guys, do we use macrons for Māori terms/place names in historical articles? I ask because of this IP edit made to Fanny Howie. My inclination is to reverse the edit as the macrons are appropriate/accurate and are an accepted part of New Zealand English, but then I wondered if there was some rule about using the contemporary spelling that I'm not aware of. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, historic names of places are used when referring to appropriate historical periods. So, Opotiki, not Ōpōtiki. This also applies to the names of people (with exceptions under MOS:DEADNAME) and a few other matters, but not flora, so pōhutukawa, not pohutukawa. BilledMammal (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
That makes sense to me! I don't know why but it didn't occur to me to check the general guidance on geographic names in WP:NCGN. You're right, the historical English name should be used for the placename. Thanks, Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Assuming the then correct English language spelling was Opotiki but is now Ōpōtiki, the spelling to use will vary and must be used in context and sometimes either is possible. In the example sentence, I see no reason not to use Ōpōtiki: the article is written in the present, discussing a time in the past, hence use present spelling. There will need to be a clear reason for using the earlier spelling, which here there is not. We would not, for example, write an essay today and say "Magna Carta was signed in Engeland in 1215". Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
That's a good point; we're discussing what is a minor variation on the same name, rather than a different name - and it is minor, rather than a more significant difference such as "London" vs "Londinium". I think now that I was wrong; when the only difference is macrons, we should use the current name, rather than the historical name. I believe there is a policy that details what to do here, but I can't currently find it (I previously mentioned WP:MODERNPLACENAME, but that applies to article titles, rather than use in prose, so I removed it). BilledMammal (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Oooh the plot thickens. I was thinking about the page on Ellen Ballance and how throughout I used Wanganui rather than Whanganui; I'm not sure if that is the same kind of example or different... pinging @Schwede66: will be interested to know your thoughts? Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
I've found the policy; MOS:PLACE. A place should generally be referred to consistently by the same name as in the title of its article (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)). An exception may be made when there is a widely accepted historical English name appropriate to the given context.
Assuming that in when discussing pre-change events "Opotiki" is not the WP:COMMONNAME of the place, then using "Ōpōtiki" would be the policy-compliant method. BilledMammal (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
I think it depends on the context, but if we're talking about a place or organisation that exists today I would tend to use modern spelling that is accepted for this place/organisation, since the articles are written for a modern audience (unless it was wildly different, then maybe the original spelling and an explanation note). I had this problem with Māngere, since 100 years ago people would spell it any old way (Mangare, Mangary, and my favourite, Maungarei). --Prosperosity (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Using another context example, if we were writing about life in the 1930s in the Polish city of Gdansk, we would probably call it Danzig. To me, this is because the city in the 1930s was very different, not just due to age: German city (League of Nations madate) full of Germans speaking German with a German culture and heritage. Even if the Polish name differed from the German by something as minor as a diacritic, I think the German name would be used. However, if I were Polish writing in Polish, I think I'd be more inclined to use Gdansk even when writing about the 1930s. Interesting to ponder, would we as English speakers, when writing about London in AD 150, call it London or Londinium? Although it is a bit of a cop out, I think the simple answer is it depends on context and context can vary hugely. To me, this is the sort of thing that a wiki consensus is supposed to be used for. It is not to determine what is right or wrong; instead to say both (sides of the argument) can be right or wrong in different circumsatances, but for practicality in WP we will adopt this consensus reached way of writing "the given disagreement". A common example is Derry/Londonderry. Both can be right or wrong in context (usually the political leanings of the writing) but because context will differ WP always uses Derry for the city and Londonderry for the county, and that is a consensus decision that seems to work. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Chocmilk03, yes, it's a topic where judgement is required, context is important, and sometimes a talk page discussion for consensus. Schwede66 08:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on renaming the Māori Wikipedia

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An editor has suggested we rename Māori Wikipedia to Wikipītia because there is no letter 'd' in the Māori language. Feedback is welcome. See mi:Wikipedia:Kōrero#Vote: Rename Māori Wikipedia to Wikipītia.-gadfium 17:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 27 December 2021 - "NZ Transport Agency" to "Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency"

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have a move request going on at NZ Transport Agency should anyone care to chip in. Quilt Phase (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Assistance Required Gathering Sources for List of indigenous peoples

Please see the discussion at Talk:List of indigenous peoples regarding the absence hundreds of sources in this article. If possible, contribute to discussion and provide input.

List of indigenous peoples is a massive list of which the majority of entries are are without citation. The article is in need of a team of editors to procedurally review each entry and identify reliable sources--or lack thereof.

There is also an ongoing discussion regarding the terms of inclusion in this list, which you are welcome to get involved in.

01:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC), KaerbaqianRen💬
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_Zealand_Wikipedians%27_notice_board/Archive_30&oldid=1083475865"