Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

A collaborative Wikiproject for Christchurch-related articles ?

A small group of editors have shown interest in collaboration to improve the Christchurch article, and significant work has already taken place. In addition to the work on the main article, the collaboration will involve review and changes for various Christchurch-related articles, and potentially the creation of some new articles. It may be useful to establish a Wikiproject to help co-ordinate this work and provide a central place for discussion about inter-relationships between content etc. Future expansion of the project scope could potentially include improvements to media in Wikimedia Commons, and enhancing coverage in Wikidata and Wikisource. There are several possible approaches to a project for supporting collaboration. These are:

1. stay with the current approach of discussions on the talk pages of articles (ie, do not establish a project)
2. establish a simple collaborative project page (or taskforce), broadly similar to WP:WikiProject New Zealand/National parks. This might include a table with a row for each section of the main article, and a separate table listing some related articles that are important to the discussions, with some notes about the issues and proposed steps for those sections or articles. Establishing a simple collaborative project page appears quite easy.
3. establish a fully-featured WikiProject_Christchurch, possibly following the example of: WP:WikiProject_Auckland, including a banner for the new Wikiproject to be applied to the talk page for all category-linked articles (presumably by a robot or tool), and then providing an automated table of all articles linked to the WikiProject_Christchurch, with their importance and quality rating. Establishing a fully-featured WikiProject appears somewhat complex, but would be in line with other projects for city articles (see listing of benchmark projects on the WikiProject Auckland page). However, it would need a reasonably large number of editors involved to make this worthwhile.

Please provide feedback on the merits of a WikiProject for Christchurch-related articles, and the preferred approach._Marshelec (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

In my view, a taskforce is plenty enough. There aren't the numbers available to support or justify a full-blown WikiProject. Schwede66 23:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that a taskforce under WPNZ is plenty. I'm happy to help with coordinating. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 23:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I would be interested in participating in a Christchurch taskforce. I have never been to Christchurch (nor Auckland), so I don't have particuarly much knowledge about the area in my head already, but I have noticed that Christchurch articles tend to pique my interest more than most places, so it would be nice to be told about topics which have no, or limited, coverage on Wikipedia. 📊Panamitsu (talk) 00:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I approve this task force, seems like a nice project. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 00:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I think there is consensus to create something like a Christchurch Taskforce. What are the next steps in implementing such a thing? I am happy to put in some mahi to organise and coordinate this.

1. I can start by creating a taskforce page, perhaps at Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Christchurch
2. I would like to be able to tag Christchurch-relevant pages as part of the taskforce scope, similar to how we tag Māori-relevant topics. This would give editors a good starting place for articles to improve. What is involved in editing the WPNZ template and categorisation there?

David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 06:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Tagging the articles like we do for Māori-relevant topics would elevate this from a taskforce to a WikiProject. I'd say defining which categories contain relevant articles should do for a taskforce. Schwede66 06:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I have created the taskforce page here: Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Christchurch Taskforce, please feel free to edit and contribute. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 21:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Medtral

So, as part of the Wikidata Coordinate Me 2024 I've stumbled on a New Zealand "hospital" called Medtral. I'm not sure if they're still a thing, since www.medtral.com is now an expired domain, searching doesn't turn up much, and the article history looks very suspiciously WP:COI or WP:BROCHURE mostly circa 2008-09. Should we delete the article? I've changed the Wikidata item to an instance of "medical tourism" instead of "hospital" in the meantime. — Jon (talk) 08:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I came across the same one the other day trying to clean up the list of NZ articles without coordinates but forgot to mention it. I've got the same concerns about it as a thing and reckon it could be worth deletion - I noticed it had a couple of news articles a while back, but not a lot recently. Turnagra (talk) 09:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

It was the international marketing arm of MercyAscot. The WP article seems to be part of their marketing effort. Delete. Nurg (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Created by an SPA, who I suspect had COI. It's not something I've heard of in my work in the Auckland health region, so I agree with deleting. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medtral (2nd nomination) Schwede66 20:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Medtral was removed from the Companies Register in 2020. So delete.--Gertrude206 (talk) 06:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

ThreeNow

Hi there, I have finished a draft article on the ThreeNow streaming service. However, the mainspace ThreeNow currently redirects to Three (TV channel). Was wondering if someone who is an admin could resolve this issue? Thanks. Andykatib (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I've filed for the redirect to be speedily deleted, I should be able to sort the draft once that's been processed. Turnagra (talk) 05:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Turnagra:, thanks so much. Hope things go smoothly. Andykatib (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Should be all sorted and approved now! Turnagra (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Saturday 18 May Auckland - Edit-a-thon and Photo tour -Women in Architecture Aotearoa

Women in Architecture Aotearoa WikiProject is a project to improve content of New Zealand women architects and their work in Wikipedia, Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons.

On Saturday 18 May 2024 there is an in-person walking tour at 10am - 1pm and an editing event 10am - 4pm. Book a ticket (for catering and organising purposes). Lunch provided. Feel free to drop in anytime for a refresher of how to do Wikipedia or to contribute your expertise and meet others.

This project is inspired by the publishing in 2022 of the book Making Space: A History of New Zealand Women in Architecture edited by Elizabeth Cox.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland_23

Walking Tour, 10am to 1pm The walking tour will be starting in Auckland CBD and take you to five locations. Free license photos and images are a challenging aspect of filling out wikipedia articles. Attendees will be asked to take photos during the walking tour and upload them to WikiCommons to contribute to the online database! Meet outside the Ellen Melville Centre at 10am, we will finish the tour at Auckland Museum. Lunch will be provided, followed by a tutorial on photo uploading by Lisa. Please bring your own laptop for uploading!

Edit-a-thon, 10am to 4pm The edit-a-thon will run from 10am-4pm at the Learning Labs at Auckland Museum. Copies of Making Space and other publications will be available for reference. All experience levels welcome! A beginners’ course will be held at 10am after introductions, for new editors or experienced ones that need a refresher. Location: Learning Labs, at Auckland Museum, Level 1 next to Te Whiwhinga the Imaginarium.

Feel free to come by any time during the day to join the group.

Please bring your own editing device.

Lunch will be provided at 1pm.
Pakoire (talk) 04:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Shine TV sources

The Christian TV channel Shine TV has a streaming service called Shine On Demand but have had trouble finding third party sources like news media or Scoop reports. The only sources that I have been able to find are its website and two Facebook Videos from 2020 and 2021. Not sure if I can use these sources for the article? Andykatib (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

The website is probably fine for WP:ABOUTSELF but you're not going to be able to write much more than the fact that it exists with those sources. If it has no coverage outside of their website and Facebook does it merit inclusion? Traumnovelle (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

If it does not have independent sources it’s not notable. Schwede66 18:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Traumnovelle: and @Schwede66: for your advice. Will just briefly mention Shine On Demand in the Shine article using the webpage but won't use the Facebook sources. Andykatib 01:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Wairau Creek, Auckland

Hi, was pointed here (by User Lovelano (thank you)) from Commons. I realised that there are two distinct creeks called "Wairau Creek" in Auckland, one to the north of Waitemata Harbour (meeting Hauraki Gulf at Milford Reserve), and the other between Glendene and Kelston in the southwest of the harbour.

What would be the best way to name the categories on Commons for these two distinct creeks as at the moment, we have c:Category:Wairau Creek (4 images - I do not know if they're all of the same creek) and c:Category:Wairau Creek, Auckland (empty): they are not specific enough, but I'm unfamiliar with local views/naming/best practice.

The descriptions for the Wikidata items:

• Wairau Creek (Q116482199) creek on the North Shore, Auckland, New Zealand
• Wairau Creek (Q112854633) creek in Kelston, Auckland, New Zealand

Based on that, suggested category names are: "Wairau Creek, Kelston" and "Wairau Creek, North Shore"? Any thoughts? I can create cats etc., but feel free to be bold. Thanks in advance. Deadstar (talk) 13:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Why not just Wairau Creek, Milford? Traumnovelle (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

You would disambiguate based on a suburb, not some reserve. Schwede66 18:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. So is the suggestion "Wairau Creek, Kelston" and "Wairau Creek, Milford"? Deadstar (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

No. "Wairau Creek, Kelston" and "Wairau Creek, North Shore". Schwede66 19:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is fine. It makes no sense to use a suburb for one and the larger area/old city for another. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

What? Both Milford and Kelston are suburbs, Milford isn't 'some reserve' and the North Shore isn't a suburb. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I was unaware of that. Schwede66 02:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

One issue here is that the North Shore creek is on the border between Milford and Castor Bay (so it'd be like saying 'Tasman Sea, Australia'), and that it flows through multiple North Shore suburbs. Prosperosity (talk) 04:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

It mostly flows through Milford and exits to sea there, a small part of the stream flows through Hillcrest. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Deadstar: The three shadowy images are of the Kelston creek, while the aerial shot is of the North Shore one. Prosperosity (talk) 04:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I suggest 'Wairau Creek (North Shore)' and 'Wairau Creek (West Auckland)'. Firstly, the format - isn't it more usual on Commons for disambiguators for creeks to be in parentheses rather than separated by a comma and space? I don't agree with using 'Kelston' as the disambiguator. Why use 'Kelston' and not 'Glendene', which Auckland Libraries uses, or 'Glen Eden', which is where the creek originates. Problem solved if the name for the wider area is used, with the added advantage that 'West Auckland' is more widely recognised than individual suburb names. I'm curious as to why Wairau Creek (Q112854633) in Wikidata says "in Kelston". User:Prosperosity added that (and he does good work on Auckland topics), so he might join this discussion and comment. Nurg (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, Nurg. We need to use parenthetical disambiguation as per WP:NCNZ. Schwede66 02:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Nurg: No special reason outside of what was already discussed - that there were two separate creeks with the same name, and disambiguation had to be reasonably specific (as they were both urban streams within the same city and region). Prosperosity (talk) 04:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Nurg: I'd absolutely support the label being Wairau Creek, West Auckland (the creek is at the border between Kelston and Glendene, and flows through Glen Eden). Prosperosity (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:NATDIS favours non-parenthetical disambiguation. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Schwede66 and Traumnovelle have cited English Wikipedia policy, but we are talking about Commons, and I'm not aware that it necessarily follows English WP policy. Nurg (talk) 08:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Correct; Commons does its own thing. What I've quoted is relevant if someone wants to write the articles. And yes, it is known that Wikipedia:NCNZ and WP:NATDIS are are variance, with the former taking precedence for New Zealand topics (on the English Wikipedia). Schwede66 22:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Not being very familiar with Auckland and needing a map to find any suburbs which aren't the very major ones - how about Wairau Creek, North Auckland and Wairau Creek, West Auckland? Otherwise if suburbs are preferred - Wairau Creek, Milford would be OK but I'd prefer Wairau Creek, Waikumete for the other one (the creek flows through the Waikumete cemetery which I can find more easily than suburbs like Kelston which, until this evening, I couldn't have guessed which part of Auckland it was in). Daveosaurus (talk) 07:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Waikumete isn't a suburb. I think most Aucklanders know where it is due to the schools located there. Also article titles and presumably Commons categories/tags should be something anyone familiar with the subject will understand. If you're not familiar with Kelston you aren't going to be familiar with some tiny creek. Traumnovelle (talk) 11:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I have sorted it all out on Commons, renaming categories, making dab pages, putting the files into correct categories and finding two additional images to add to the North Shore category. Nurg (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help and @nurg for organising! Deadstar (talk) 09:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Article for Amalgamated Worker's Union

The articles Central Amalgamated Workers' Union, Northern Amalgamated Workers' Union, and Southern Amalgamated Workers' Union need to be merged into one article. I'm too busy at the moment to do it myself. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Help with term 'Ngaroma' and 'Ngaroma House'

Hello, I am currently writing an article on Clark House. I have noticed government listings of the house such as Heritage New Zealand and the National Library mention the name 'Ngaroma' as another name for it. I have yet to come across these mentions in more detailed sources and aside from a very modern road the term Ngaroma is completely foreign to me. I cannot find out what the word means in Te Reo and I am unable to find any corrobating evidence for 'Ngaroma House' or Ngaroma in reference to the Hobsonville area at all aside from the road name.

I am hoping someone here familiar with Te Reo and Māori history might be able to find relevant information, I would not like to add it as a trivial 'also known as Ngaroma House without any further information. Abydocomist (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Abydocomist: I can't find a specific source for Clark House, but in the late 19th century/early 20th century it was fashionable for Pakeha to name houses and boats with reo Māori names (usually based on a dictionary translation of a word, and not a pre-existing name). This forum post suggests that Rice Owen Clark II is the one that named the house - the post isn't a good source, but there may be a good print source out there that give more context and information.

The traditional name used by Te Kawerau ā Maki/Ngāti Whātua for Hobsonville is Te Onekiritea and the early 19th C kāinga was called Tāhinga Manu - neither of these names appear to have any connection to Ngaroma. My best guess is that Ngaroma is a reference to a prominent yacht that was in the news at the turn of the century (probably meaning ngā roma (the currents), or maybe a reference to a person's name, but without a source for either that's just conjecture). --Prosperosity (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the claim about it being trendy/fashionable to use Te Reo names for things like boats and homes? It'd help the article if I had context for the name as otherwise it just leaves readers confused and wanting to know more. I can include the translation too, assuming that Ngaroma has no other possible translation or meaning. Abydocomist (talk) 06:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

@Abydocomist, thanks for your work on this draft article; it's looking in excellent shape and really interesting to learn about this building. :)

Even if there were sources for the 'trendy' claim, I don't think it would be appropriate to include in the article unless we had a source saying that Ngaroma was part of this trend; I think Prosperosity was just providing that information for your interest. I think you have enough from the government heritage listing, the National Library and the New Zealand Potter article to say the house has also been named Ngaroma. While it would be nice to give a more detailed explanation about how it came to be named this and what the exact etymology is, if we don't have that information we don't have it. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

@Abydocomist: I don't have a specific source, but if you look through Papers Past archives or Heritage New Zealand listings, you'll see a general trend of houses and boats having pleasant-sounding te reo (or te reo inspired) names, such as Hamurana, Te Kāinga Aroha‎ and Marinoto. Ngaroma feels like it is likely a part of this general trend: likely named by Clark, no obvious meaning, and no evidence for a link to Te Kawerau ā Maki or Ngāti Whātua (neither of whom had much presence in the area around the year 1900), but we have no definitive proof that this is what happened, and even less proof that the name has any local significance.

If I were writing the article, I'd explain that the name was given by the architect, and if there was anything additional in the source information, talk about what the architect intended for the name to mean. That's all we know and can establish at this point in time. There may be better sources in the future, so by having a Wiki article with a clear gap, someone may decide to research more into the topic one day. Prosperosity (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I have included that it was named as Ngaroma when built. Abydocomist (talk) 05:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Not houses or boats as such, but it was definitely a fad to reverse-engineer place names for post offices and railway stations about that time, e.g. "Ngapohatu" for a post office at The Rocks. Griffiths' book on Otago/Southland Māori place names has a bit of background in its introductory essays. Daveosaurus (talk) 00:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

See the article in the New Zealand Potter from 1997 (pp 6–9). Paora (talk) 01:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Google brings up a number of references to it, so I think it is quite well attested and I wouldn't hesitate to include it in the article. It seems to be a name for the house, not for the area. It does appear to be just 'Ngaroma', not 'Ngaroma House'. There are other places in NZ called Ngaroma. In terms of etymology, there is no word ngaroma in Māori, but ngā roma is a fair guess, and could mean 'the channels', given the house's location on a peninsula between different channels of the upper Waitematā. I would not include the translation 'House of Love' from the New Zealand Potter article – that is dubious. Nurg (talk) 04:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I am still researching but at the time I only found trivial mentions from government listings which do not provide any information about it. 'Ngaroma House' is the name of a road of a subdivision built on land part of Clark's business. Abydocomist (talk) 06:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:New Zealand articles missing geocoordinate data

I've been steadily working away at adding coordinates to the articles listed in the above category (link here) over the past wee while, and have finally managed to get it down from around 100 articles to just 18 left without coordinates. Unfortunately the remaining articles are proving more difficult, so I figured I would put the call out to see whether anyone else has more luck and is able to help whittle it down even further. Some of them may not be able to have coordinates added at all, particularly the old shipwrecks I suspect, but for the time being they're all still there. Turnagra (talk) 06:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

There you go - only 13 left now.

Pretty sure that the Rail Heritage Trust of New Zealand doesn't have a physical presence.

Also, the Great Ngaruawahia Music Festival is extremely frustrating. Based on photos it was likely on Hakarimata Rd or Great South Road, but it seems like they didn't even print the venue location on tickets or in news clippings (I guess people just went to Ngaruawahia and followed signs on the day?) Prosperosity (talk) 00:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! And yes, the music festivals are a pain - I had the same issue with the Mountain Rock Music Festival which has some good photos but not enough to discern any more than a general location. Turnagra (talk) 00:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Mountain Rock Music Festival was an annual event and held at two different locations. Are you able to deal with two sets of coords even if you find them? Nurg (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I assume that you mean that at some point, it swapped from the first location to the second. In that case, you could have:

• a Wikidata parent item
• two sub-entries, with one for each location and the time period the festival was held there

Just an idea. We model books this way that have several editions, e.g. Who's Who in New Zealand, Wikidata Q24189484. Schwede66 23:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Another one down - one of the radio station articles linked to an archive of their web site which still had their street address as a contact (and which was still a MediaWorks office the last time Street View drove past it). Had a look on topo maps for a few shipwreck locations but no luck on that front. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Virtual Aotearoa New Zealand Wiki meetup

Main page DYK screen shot

Hi everyone, this is your reminder that there will be a virtual Aotearoa New Zealand Wiki meet up happening tomorrow, Sunday 26 May at 12 noon. The agenda with the jitsi link to attend can be found here. Everyone is very welcome to attend. Ambrosia10 (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

If you've been following main page happenings closely, you will have noticed that the DYK lead hook was pulled yesterday. Yes, that's my mugshot. The concern was undisclosed conflict of interest (COI) editing. I'll put a few slides together to talk about conflict of interests, and how to manage them. Schwede66 03:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Here is a link to the notes taken during the meeting. This includes a link to the slides for the Conflict of Interest presentation given during the meet up. Ambrosia10 (talk) 02:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Use of Infobox Constituency for political territorial areas

Having looked at some of Auckland's local board and ward articles I've noticed they use Infobox Settlement, which as not informative about the political primary topic of the articles. So what do you think about swapping to Template:Infobox constituency because it addresses both the geographic and political elements of the article? Duncnbiscuit(talk) 14:59 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Are they articles specifically about the local board / ward, or about the corresponding suburb? If it's the former then they should absolutely use the constituency infobox, but if not then they should be using the NZ Suburb infobox. Turnagra (talk) 03:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

No wards correspond to suburbs/localities in Auckland. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The hierarchy is suburb-->Local Board-->Ward, suburbs are not an administative territory, with Local Boards containing multiple suburbs bring the smallest political unit. We have articles covering the suburbs, boards and wards, and its my view that we could use the constituency template for the boards and wards, instead of the settlement and legislature templates we currently use together.

Duncnbiscuit(talk) 13:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd expect the local board/ward articles to discuss political elements almost entirely - there's very little public consciousness around what the board areas/wards are (compared to the city/district system pre-2010). I think infobox constituency would be a much better fit for these articles. Prosperosity (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I've changed the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board article to use the Constituency Infobox. The only information missing compared to the old infoboxes is the geographic area but that can be sorted by tweaking the optional parameters. Feedback is welcome.Duncnbiscuit (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

It's a shame that there doesn't seem to be a way to add in native_name to the infobox (especially in such a prominent way like with the settlement template - any ideas on how to display a reo Maaori name as prominently? This doesn't seem to be a part of the infobox at all, as non-English speaking electorates like Niigata 1st district don't have a space to display names). Prosperosity (talk) 00:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The easy way is to make use of the parameters |blank1_name = and |blank1_info = . The neater way would be to ask to have the template amended (on its talk page) to include a parameter |native_name =. Schwede66 01:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

You could probably replace the |constituency_type = paraemeter as an unorthodox way of doing it. I trust our readers are smart enough to figure out that the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board is a local board. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

While I agree that the settlement template doesn't really seem appropriate for the Auckland local board pages, I also don't think that the constituency template is quite right either.

Both of those templates are intended for areas, whereas local boards are lower level local government organisations. As such, I think the legislature template is the template that should be used. This would also be consistent with what is currently used on other local government pages.-161.29.216.215 (talk) 07:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that its important for the native name to be included and that could be done with the optional parameters or highjacking consituency_type.

As for just using thhe Legislature Infobox? I opted for the constituency Infobox because Local Boards are very focused on the local geographic area. With less power than the Ward level counsellors and Constituency MPs but a much closer local connection to their communities. On reading Constituency and Legislature, I think that while Ward (electoral subdivision) is a true constituency of the Auckland Council legislature, the lower level Local Board is a bit of a mix because they do decide on local matters, like a legislature would but they also can't really implement any decisions without the Council's input, and thr board also represent their local electorate's views to the council, like a consistuency but not as directly as the Ward Counsellors. In the end I'm of the view that we need to include geographic and political information in their articles, which Constituency fits best. Duncnbiscuit (talk) 07:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

At least some of the local boards have corresponding local board area pages, e.g.: Howick (local board area), Rodney (local board area) & Franklin (local board area).

These pages would seem, at least to me, to be more suitable for the constituency infobox and geographic information that you're concerned about. Either that, or these pages should be merged with the local board pages.

2405:DA40:434D:3B00:C9C6:6E89:C0DD:3FD6 (talk) 10:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Mokai Tramway#Requested move 26 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mokai Tramway#Requested move 26 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Wellington Wiki meetup - Saturday 8th June

Reminder, the in person Wellington Wiki Meetup is happening this Saturday 8 June 2024 10:00 am to midday at Programme Rooms (behind the reception desk), Ground Floor of National Library, corner Molesworth and Aitken Streets, Wellington. See this link for the agenda Ambrosia10 (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Auckland Wiki meetup – Saturday 8 June

A reminder that an in-person Auckland Wiki meetup is happening this Saturday 8 June 2024, 10:00 am to midday at the New Lynn War Memorial Library meeting room. See here for more information. Paora (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Royals (Lorde song)#Requested move 7 June 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Royals (Lorde song)#Requested move 7 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 12:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Urban Route road designations

The Auckland urban route network article has zero citations. From what (⅘ FA) is available online, it seems these designations are not necessarily restricted to Auckland, so at the very least it should possibly be renamed to New Zealand Urban Routes or similar. I would think they'd be in some sort official gazette somewhere though. Are they administered by NZTA, or local authorities (Auckland Transport)? Are there any folks who know about this sort of thing and can help? In the meantime I've kicked off the shield image bit, configured the {{Jct}} template to take UR so we can produce Route 31, and added them to Auckland Northern Motorway. I'd like to fix up all the other motorway junction tables, but it would be nice to get this sorted out first. Are they noteworthy enough to have their own articles? Some of them are former provincial highways, e.g. SH 17 (formerly a provincial highway) is now Route 31, old bits of SH 18 are now Route 29, etc. — Jon (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

NZTA have a standard for them: https://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/Road-Efficiency-Group/docs/functional-classification.pdf but I believe it's up to the council to go about designating them. Most of the arterial routes in Auckland are former state highways that had the arterial route designation assigned quite quickly, possibly before the switch as I don't remember not seeing the designation after some state highways became council roads. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

As to notability, some are already notable, Great North Road, New Zealand, Great South Road, New Zealand, Dominion Road, Khyber Pass Road, Tamaki Drive, I could go on. Whilst not every arterial route may meet notability quite a few I believe do have the ability to given their long history and importance to the areas. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:NewLabour Party (New Zealand)#Requested move 28 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:NewLabour Party (New Zealand)#Requested move 28 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Suspected Conflict of Interest; Amy Benjamin

Kia ora, I hope everyone has been well. Following the Stuff news article about a retraction they had to make concerning the former AUT academic Amy Benjamin, I was surprised to see that the Benjamin article was created and only really edited by a single user, User:Lgt1011. Coincidentally, Benjamin is a "9/11 truther" and the only other edit is on the 9/11 truth movement page. It could be that someone with an interest in Benjamin's work has made the page, however her Linkedin specifically mentions her wikipedia, which makes me think that it was her who created the article.

It's been a long time since I've edited like this, but I was wondering if more eyes on the original article were needed, or if a proper process should be initiated.

Thanks! Nauseous Man (talk) 04:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The article seems fine to me. I removed the student magazine part for obvious reasons. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I can't see anything in the prose that raises any concerns. Schwede66 01:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Government articles

In the past day or so there have been a few editors expanding government organisations and ministries. I've reverted a couple of them as they read like advertisements or just were not that useful (one of them was describing entry requirements for a scholarship). It would be nice if another person could have a look through these.

I've gathered a list of these articles they've gone through, but I haven't checked all of them yet.

• WorkSafe New Zealand
• New Zealand Treasury
• Inland Revenue Department (New Zealand)
• NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi
• Ministry for the Environment (New Zealand)
• Ministry of Education (New Zealand)
• Department of Conservation (New Zealand)
• Ministry of Health (New Zealand)
• New Zealand Defence Force
• New Zealand Police
• Ministry for Ethnic Communities
• Electricity Authority (New Zealand)
• New Zealand Space Agency

―Panamitsu (talk) 02:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Panamitsu: thanks for flagging this; I'd seen a couple come up on my watchlist and had noted the promotional tone but not so much the pattern. I've had a look at a couple (DOC and Treasury) and added tags/made some amendments but there is likely more that can be done. Will look at more if I have time! Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Yep, I'm sure a paid servant in Wellington is at it. Schwede66 05:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Request for assistance with article copyediting/clean up

Hi. I am seeking help with copyediting and clean up at Franklin Bulls. It is a niche New Zealand basketball topic with a small number of contributors. Myself and the article's main contributor have had our differences over the neutrality of the content, so it would be great if someone organically was able to review the page and offer some suggestions or make some edits. Thanks. DaHuzyBru (talk) 10:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Virtual Aotearoa New Zealand Wiki meetup - Sunday 23 June

Reminder: The Aotearoa New Zealand Wiki online meetup is being held virtually on Sunday 23 June 2024 from midday to 2pm (NZST). The agenda with the meeting jitsi link can be found here. All are very welcome to attend. Ambrosia10 (talk) 04:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Whetumarama Wereta

Whetumarama Wereta died last year, could someone please update the article? Obit at https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/poroporoaki-whet%C5%ABm%C4%81rama-wereta. I've done wikidata. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Stuart, I updated the article.-Gadfium (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Chatham Islands pushpin map is broken

The map that appears in many articles related to the Chatham Islands, such as Lake Pateriki, is mostly blank - it has gridlines and legends and a small context map, but the main area is white rather than showing the Chatham Islands. The map comes from commons:File:Chatham-Islands map topo en.svg and looks like it has always had that problem, but a translation at commons:File:Chatham-Islands map topo-mk.svg looks fine. Strangely, File:Chatham-Islands map topo-mk.svg is also mostly blank, but that should be pulling the same image from commons. I've tried in Firefox and Chrome on Windows and in Firefox on Android. Do others see the same problem, or just me?-Gadfium (talk) 06:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I think something strange is going on with converting the SVG to PNG for the previews, as the Macedonian preview works but the SVG has the issue you describe. When I opened the SVGs (of all images), the outline of the island was there for a split second and then it disappeared. ―Panamitsu (talk) 07:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I've just had a look at Inkscape, and I've figured out what is causing the SVG to break on browsers. There are three containers, each called "ArcGIS Layer", "g14861" and "g20591". They contain a bunch of Base64 image that when I convert to a PNG, they are just white strips. I'm not sure why these white strips are there, but when I disable them in Inkscape the image works fine. ―Panamitsu (talk) 07:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Panamitsu, can you re-upload the image with those containers disabled, please.-Gadfium (talk) 22:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Here is the fixed version. I've requested that the original file be overwritten. ―Panamitsu (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you.-Gadfium (talk) 03:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

June East Coast floods

Hi there, I have recently started work the Draft:2024 East Coast floods, which hit Hawke's Bay and the Gisborne District/Tairawhiti last week. Wanted to invite other Wikipedians, particularly those from that those regions, to participate in the article. It has a significant level of media coverage due to local emergencies being declared. Feel free to help if you're interested. Andykatib (talk) 03:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Panamitsu:, thanks for adding those sources to the draft article Will work on them over the next few days. Cheers. Andykatib (talk) 04:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I might work on it a bit too but am mostly focussed on the Canterbury earthquakes at the moment. ―Panamitsu (talk) 06:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a global encyclopaedia. Please add the country to the article name. HiLo48 (talk) 06:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

On a brief look it looks like "Wairoa" is the most commonly used location for this event, so it may be a good idea to name it "2024 Wairoa floods". Hawke's Bay is also common, and this is followed by East Coast and Cape Coast. ―Panamitsu (talk) 06:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Are we sure this will meet WP:SUSTAINED? TheLoyalOrder (talk) 21:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure it will, Gisborne floods every year and this isn't very severe compared to other events. No casualties and only 400 homes damaged and unlikely to be part of any government buyback scheme. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd say that an official inquiry ensures that WP:SUSTAINED is met. Schwede66 01:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

If it actually results in something happening, e.g. if the local council is held responsible, has management of river taken away, etc. I could see it meeting WP:NEVENT. Official inquiries are pretty much standard every time some sort of event occurs and whilst they may sometimes result in change they also often get ignored or downplayed. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Here today gone tomorrow. Why don't you create an article about something that had a significant effect on the country for years afterwards, not just this week's third headline news. You'd be better to create an article about why NZ floods so often, or improve one that already exists. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Taumatawhakatangi­hangakoauauotamatea­turipukakapikimaunga­horonukupokaiwhen­uakitanatahu

Anyone that can or knows anyone that can, it would be cool if there was an pronunciation audio sample next to the title in the lead. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 08:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Like how Llanfairpwllgwyngyll is done. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 06:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Great idea, wish I was able to help. Perhaps someone could reach out to the local iwi if we don't get any takers? Turnagra (talk) 08:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

NZ Government Department Articles

A recent spree of edits by someone apparently affiliated with the NZ government has drawn my attention to the poor state of articles on government departments. As an example, take a look at Ministry for the Environment (New Zealand), specifically at this rev. It seems like this article periodically has PR fluff added by government reps with really no concern for the previous content, resulting in a mess of mostly duplicated sections. I had a crack at cleaning it up.

It might be worth reaching out to whatever government agencies are involved and providing some guidance on how they can best engage with Wikipedia. Perhaps also a template that can be dropped on talk pages to tell them that:

1. COI editing is discouraged, including editing on behalf of an employer.
2. Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue for non-encyclopaedic PR speak.
3. Press releases from a ministry are primary (and possibly self-published) sources and therefore are usually not appropriate.

David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 23:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, a lot of our governmental articles are in a pretty sorry state once you get outside of the purely political area. For memory, we did something in the past with parliament after there was some shady editing there that seemed to go well - @Schwede66, do I remember correctly that you led (or were involved) in that? Perhaps there's some material we could reuse or lessons from that to shape this? Turnagra (talk) 10:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Lisa was leading that. We’ve talked to them a few times but nothing of substance has ever come from it. Schwede66 10:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Parliamentary Service now have a Wikipedia policy which relates to COI (I can't find a link to the project page right now sorry). I have flagged this thread to my contact there. Pakoire (talk) 03:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

This is the New Zealand Parliament GLAM Page, which includes guidance for employees of the Parliamentary Service when editing Wikipedia. *frijōndz (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Unproductive diversion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It is a well known fact that the quality of civil servants and employmees in all govt bodies, councils, crown entities and state owned companies, is about as low as you can get. There are plenty of quality people working there, don't misunderstand me, but if they stay they just idle along not trying to improve the unimproveable, or they leave. That might sound negative but it is true, borne out by countless examples worldwide. It's the system, not the person necessarily, although there are plenty of very low quality people in positions of authority. In this case I suspect the people who are playing around with wiki articles about their own place of employment simply haven't got anything better to do. Would trying to 'educate' them in how better to use wikipedia be of any use? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC) What an extraordinary comment. Jon (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC) I'm not going to engage with the rest of your comment, but: "I suspect the people who are playing around with wiki articles...simply haven't got anything better to do" - couldn't this be said about all of us?-2405:DA40:4362:1E00:246A:DFA:AC25:5BD9 (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC) That's a pretty disrespectful comment and completely unnecessary, Roger. Turnagra (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC) The most staggering thing here is the misconception that any of these failings (real or perceived, but mostly perceived) are somehow unique to the public sector. I recommend you re-read John Ralston Saul's Voltaire's Bastards, nothing has fundamentally changed in the 30 years since he wrote it, if anything it's worse, and David Graeber's Bullshit Jobs while you're at it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanischoice (talk • contribs) 20:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC) Perhaps a bit blunt but not directed at any person, just the public sector, and my comment, curt though it was is basically correct. Yes, for many editors they do indeeed have nothing better to do, but we're talking about the public sector, those with a job for life if they just tow the line and don't make waves - you know, as good as the lowest common denominator. Once again, I am refering to the system, not the person. You don't have to look far to see examples of this - the UK Post Office scandal] for example, or closer to home, the EQC post-quake, or the current East Coast flooding-a robot could have done a better job. Anyway, to the point of this, why waste time trying to 'educate' these state employees? If they want to learn what to do they will. There are better things to do, surely. I'm sorry if you found my remarks too blunt. (Oh, another point - the standard required of the state sector is very high, so we must assume it/they know what to do). Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC) I echo the person above who said that your criticisms apply just as equally, if not much more, to the private sector. And "we're talking about the public sector, those with a job for life if they just tow the line and don't make waves", really? Have you not seen the news about the restructures and people losing their jobs? It's been happening all over the government, so it's not like they can just go from one part of the public service to another, or even become private contractors as the government says it wants to cut those too. And this sort of thing has happened before, and will likely happen again in future, when there have been switches to right wing governments. Also, the government is by far the biggest employer is this country, so you're smearing a good chunk of the population with this brush.-2405:DA40:4362:1E00:B1D7:6CF6:6D07:6BBE (talk) 00:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC) "Perhaps a bit blunt" - incredible. Your comments are prejudiced, bigoted, ill-informed, and mean-spirited, not to mention largely incorrect, and you've doubled down with even more invective. Obnoxious management, sociopaths, terrible leadership, and the occasional deadweights are everywhere, and do not discriminate on this particular axis. Your comments (charitably) do not contribute positively towards progressing the goals and ambitions of this forum, so please keep your poisonous preconceptions to yourself, and consider contribute something constructive instead.—Jon (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC) I am disturbed seeing R8R saying this: "I suspect the people who are playing around with wiki articles...simply haven't got anything better to do". Alexeyevitch(talk) 23:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Responding to the original post, while I agree there's an issue here, I'm not sure in practice talking to the relevant Ministries is going to solve anything. This isn't like the Parliament situation where the edits were clearly coming from the Parliament IP address, which led to media attention/interest. There's no clear link between the users editing and the relevant departments, which means you'll struggle to get any engagement.

For example, the person who made that edit to the MfE article also made edits to a number of other government departments, so it's not at all clear which department they work for (if any), and if you talk to MfE they're quite reasonably going to say there's no evidence of this person being an employee of MfE or that there's any widespread Wikipedia-editing problem in MfE that needs addressing. (I also thought it was interesting that a number of that person's edits were based on out-of-date information, for example referring to Treasury's "Wellbeing Budget" which was an initiative of the previous Government. This makes it even more obvious IMO that the person isn't editing with the knowledge of their employer, even if they may be a current public servant who misguidedly thinks they are improving these articles.)

I think @Cloventt's suggestion about coming up with a template for talk pages is a good one, though; addressing the problem with individual users as it arises might help. I hope as a group we will also be able to pick up/address problematic edits as they occur; I've watchlisted a number of articles that weren't previously on my radar. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 01:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a WP quotation: "It is strongly discouraged to write about yourself, your business or employer. If you do so, you must declare it." I suggest the steps to take are 1/ Be certain the additions are being made by employees (which seems to be agreed here) 2/ Confirm the edits change or add detail and are not just typo fixes (also seems to be agreed here) 3/ Delete the edits with the reason the edits are anonymously writtten by the article topic. That approach would be the simplest. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

For clarity, are you saying that step 1 is agreed upon, or that the editors being employed by the subject is agreed upon? I think the latter is far less certain, and while they seem promotional it could easily just be a case of people who don't know better adding material solely based off sources from the agencies themselves. I may also be misunderstanding, but I don't think we need to outright revert the edits just because of who made them. We'd be better placed to leave a template on their user page and check over the edits and make them less promotional as necessary. Often they have decent content it's just worded / sourced poorly. Turnagra (talk) 02:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I meant it's agreed these people are employed by the subject of the article. If that is not true then perhaps they should be treated as if they are because of the promototional nature of the edits, in other words, reverse their edits anyway.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Roger 8 Roger: The example given by Cloventt was someone who was adding information to a bunch of different government departments; they can't possibly be employed by all of them.

That's why I suggest addressing the problem with individual users and think the 3 points Cloventt suggested are appropriate:

1. COI editing is discouraged, including editing on behalf of an employer.

2. Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue for non-encyclopaedic PR speak.

3. Press releases from a ministry are primary (and possibly self-published) sources and therefore are usually not appropriate.

I also agree with @Turnagra that the approach to individual edits should be case-by-case; reverting if the content is purely promotional and adds no value, or adjusting for accuracy/tone if there's some value. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I should add, in a situation where it's very likely that the editor is employed by the relevant department (eg they've registered under a username that makes it obvious, or are editing from an IP that belongs to that department), then that would be different... but at least for the recent edits that doesn't appear to be the case. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Te Papa Editathon on research expeditions etc Saturday 13th July

The National Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa is hosting an in person Wikipedia editathon 10am to 4pm on Saturday 13 July 2024. Lunch will be provided. We'll be updating articles on Te Papa expeditions, people, places, ships, and species. To register go to this link. Ambrosia10 (talk) 00:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

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

There is a request to move the 1981 South Africa rugby union tour of New Zealand and the United States article to Springbok Tour. Only 3 people have participated in the discussion and only the requestor and I have given an opinion, though we have had a fair bit of discussion, including about other naming options. I am opposing a renaming. I could sit back and let the request fail for lack of consensus, but the noble part of me feels that wider participation could be beneficial. (I understand if the younger generation are not very interested, due to it being ancient history to them.) Nurg (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Auckland Islands flag

Do the Auckland Islands have a flag? I saw File:Flag of the Auckland Islands.svg was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, and I'm not sure if it's real. 73.170.137.168 (talk) 07:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Wheatley2: 73.170.137.168 (talk) 07:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't know, I was just vectorizing flags that were PNG's mindlessly. That's just what I do. Wheatley2 (talk) 07:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Wheatley2 Oh, was it from File:Flag of Auckland Islands.png? You didn't just do that, you also added it to an article on simple.wikipedia.org. @ThePurgatori:, is this a real flag? 73.170.137.168 (talk) 07:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I added it to an article because I just assumed it was correct. Wheatley2 (talk) 07:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

That flag is just the NZ flag jumbled around a bit - it wouldn't even work as a publicity stunt. You may as well just delete the file completely. Daveosaurus (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

If you are to delete the file, please delete the original PNG file aswell. Wheatley2 (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The Auckland Islands are part of New Zealand and thus the flag is the New Zealand flag. They have no local government so they don't have a flag like lets say Christchurch. Traumnovelle (talk) 11:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The only "source" I can find for it is this blog post. However, they do not mention where it came from. I suspect it was completely made up. There is no reason the Auckland Islands would have their own official flag.-161.29.216.215 (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The flag is fake - the Aukland Islands are New Zealand territory and the only valid flag is the New Zealand flag. NealeWellington (talk) 08:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

NZ bank notes

Does anyone have any objections to me batch-uploading a bunch of (reduced resolution) images of NZ bank notes, from the Reserve Bank's Facebook galleries(!) linked from the Reserve Bank history page? They seem to fall under a non-free rationale, e.g. $20 obverse series 3 (previously uploaded), and I've pre-done a couple of examples: $20 obverse series 5 and $20 obverse series 6. Seems the new non-free template now includes "Minimal use" and "Respect for commercial opportunities" which wasn't there before. Not sure what to put. Anyway it would be good to populate the banknote tables on the New Zealand dollar and Banknotes of the New Zealand dollar articles. It would also be good to do the coins as well, there are some good Auckland Museum images on Commons. If nothing else, this discussion is something I can point an admin to if I get bot-spammed for taking too long. — Jon (talk) 00:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Have since discovered the {{Non-free use rationale currency}} template, which is hopefully sufficient. — Jon (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

My reading of this says that series 1 and 2 (NZ pound notes) and 3 (the first dollar note designs with the young QE2 portrait) can be uploaded to Commons. Is that right? — Jon (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

You might find this page by the Reserve Bank helpful if you haven't read it already. ―Panamitsu (talk) 00:16, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I saw that, I think it's okay to upload limited to 100,000 pixels to Wikipedia (not Commons) with the currency non-free template, so I've started doing that. I've added a banknote table to New Zealand pound and added the reverse series 7 images to Banknotes of the New Zealand dollar. — Jon (talk) 04:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Waioeka / Waioweka

The New Zealand Geographic Board has gazetted some name changes that took effect on 1 August 2024. Two of those places have Wikipedia articles, and their previous official names got changed (to new official names). Obviously, that doesn't immediately change the common names but it's something that we might want to keep an eye out for:

• Waioeka → Waioweka
• Waioeka River → Waioweka River

The reason I know about it is because I'm on the Board's mailing list. If you also want to receive their updates, let me know and I'll get you in touch with them. Schwede66 23:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I've added the new names to the text of the articles. Nurg (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Would this not fall under the wording of WP:NZNC where it states that we should use the NZGB spelling when a common name is of Māori origin? The two names to me seem to be an orthographic difference as opposed to a complete change, which makes me think it's close enough that we could follow that and change it now. Turnagra (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, this is a tad different. The official name changed a few days ago. That would suggest that it’ll take a wee while for the new name to become the common name. Schwede66 10:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to wait and see what the local council does with regard to the naming of roads, wards etc. (Waka Kotahi hasn't seen fit to signpost the place name at all on the state highway; if they had, the change on that signage would otherwise have been a sensible occasion to move the article). The only change I'd make before then would be to edit the first sentence of the lede to read "Waioeka or Waioweka is a rural community..." Daveosaurus (talk) 11:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

My point was more that the two names, to me, seem like an orthographic correction (as in, they're both based on the same name) rather than a new name entirely (eg. Russell to Kororāreka) - which seems to be echoed in the Gazetteer, noting "Waioeka" is a natural elision of "Wai-o-weka", lit. "wai": stream; "o": of; "weka": flightless woodhen. Given this, it seems to me that we should be following the spelling as outlined in the NZGB. Turnagra (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Double-Olympian: Erica Dawson (sailor)

I thought I'd let you know that Erica Dawson (sailor), who had competed at the 2020 Olympics, was moved to draft in 2022 as "not ready for mainspace" and then deleted in 2023. The article was reasonably well developed. She is competing at the Paris Olympics and that should make her notable beyond doubt. If somebody would like to work on the article, I can restore the latest version of the draft in draft space – just let me know. Schwede66 00:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of List of electoral firsts in New Zealand for deletion

Do you think that this list is worth preserving? Seee duiscussion re deletion. Hugo999 (talk) 11:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Aotearoa New Zealand online Wiki meetup - Sunday 18 August

The next Aotearoa New Zealand online Wiki meetup is being held this Sunday 18 August from midday to 2pm (NZST). The agenda with the meeting jitsi link can be found here. All are very welcome to attend._Marshelec (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Udûn#Requested move 8 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Udûn#Requested move 8 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans 19:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Become Aotearoa’s next roving Wikipedian

The Wikipedian at Large spends between six and twelve months doing short projects with different groups and organisations, sometimes all around the country, sometimes in a particular region. They might spend one week helping a gallery load images of artworks into Wikimedia Commons, the next running training workshops for school librarians, and the one after that in the bush getting students to take openly-licensed bird photos.

If this sounds good to you, check out the link below for how to apply. Proposals are due by 30 September 2024 and we will announce the successful applicant by 15 October 2024.

How to apply CopperAlchemy (talk) 03:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Auckland Wiki meetup – Saturday 24 August

A reminder that an in-person Auckland Wiki meetup is happening this Saturday 24 August 2024, 10:00 am to midday at the New Lynn War Memorial Library meeting room. See here for more information. --Prosperosity (talk) 00:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Unrelated but the photos in that article make me dolorous with how ugly New Lynn has become. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Traumnovelle: New Lynn is a wonderful, vibrant place! It's one of my favourite restaurant districts in the entire city. Perhaps you could come to the next wiki meetup to see what New Lynn is like these days? Prosperosity (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

It might have fine restaurants but it doesn't look very pretty anymore. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Case for Environmental education in New Zealand?

After thwarting a copyvios attempt at Enviroschools. I happened to stumble across this page as its target and noticed the sources present on this article might not be sufficient for notability of the subject. Is there anyone in this WikiProject with access to local news or media covering this subject that can either try to prove me wrong or make a case for deletion? Search engine results here in America don't allow me to reach global media that efficiently. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 21:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Best search is Google Scholar [1], which strongly suggests notability. I still think dump it as written, and build the relevant material into a section somewhere like Education in New Zealand, to potentially split out later, but if anyone here has the inclination to read a whole bunch of the first page of Scholar, building it where it stands isn’t a terrible prospect. — HTGS (talk) 04:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Murder of Mallory Manning#Requested move 22 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Murder of Mallory Manning#Requested move 22 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans 07:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)