Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand/Archive 3

I just created a small article about a village in New Zealand, and looked for an infobox template I could use on there, but couldn't find one suitable. The article is Arundel, New Zealand and all I've been able to do was to include a map so far. Is there a suitable infobox template? Regards, Hebrides (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The standard infobox for settlements of any size is {{Infobox Settlement}}. That said, there's not much information in the article that would be useful in one. Infoboxes are entirely optional, and personally I think the article is fine without one. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 22:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone know if the film Truth in Numbers, the first doco all about WP, is gunna show at the pitchers in NZ? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Some extra eyes to check this article for NPOV please? I don't know enough about NZ politics. Thanks! - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like other users opinions of this article. The creator is a new editor who says his reason for joining wiki is specifically for this purpose. The subject appears to be notable but I'm not sure that that content is sufficiently encyclopedic and may be disproportionate. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ 11:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with there being an article: Being the first European settlers in any NZ town is inherently notable, and most early missionaries are fairly well documented. I think it needs more inline citations though, especially for the timeline notes. The map also needs to have a course cited for the information it contains. If modified to show other mission stations it would be an excellent resource for other missionary articles.

It's a fair assumption that there is some degree of conflict of interest from the author. So long as there are sources, I don't think the article is too long, rather that through lack of time and effort, our articles on many other New Zealand pioneers are too short. dramatic (talk) 22:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the editor has a conflict of interest - is it more of a case of documenting something of interest? I agree with User:Dramatic in that other articles may be too short. It seems the James and Mary Wallis were quite notable Wesleylan missionaries. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Benjamin Mountfort has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Falcorian (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Please weigh in on a requested page move involving Waikato and Waikato (disambiguation): Talk:Waikato. --Una Smith (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi all - a considerable number of stubs on New Zealand rivers have just ben created - almost all of them simply contain the text "The Foo River is a river in New Zealand", along with a survey reference. If anyone knows anything about these rivers - even if only whereabouts in NZ they are, then help would be appreciated in adding the regional category (e.g., Category:Bay of Plenty) and the relevant regional geo-stub (e.g., replacing {{NewZealand-geo-stub}} with {{Otago-geo-stub}}). More info would also be useful, of course, but sorting them by region would be a good place to start. All of these stubs are currently to be found in Category:New Zealand geography stubs. Grutness...wha? 02:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at the Otago / Southland rivers from A to K tonight, giving very brief notes as to where they are. I will try to get the rest done tomorrow night if I get the chance. Daveosaurus (talk) 11:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I did not find any adequate template for the RNZAF copyright. The RNZAF writes:
CROWN COPYRIGHT 2002- 2009: Material featured on this site is subject to Crown copyright protection unless otherwise indicated. The Crown copyright protected material may be reproduced free of charge in any format or media without requiring specific permission.
This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. Where the material is being published or issued to others, the source and copyright status must be acknowledged." I would be glad if you could help. Cobatfor 22:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think {{Non-free New Zealand Crown Copyright}} is the appropriate tag. I understand "reproduced accurately" to mean no derivative work/alteration, needs to uploaded here rather than Commons. With "the source ... must be acknowledged", best to include "RNZAF website" and the URL to the specific webpage where the image came from. Also, as the legal page says, images credited to a third party aren't covered. XLerate (talk) 01:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Sadly this does not work for Commons. Cobatfor 07:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

That's right, it shouldn't - a Commons requirement is being able to make a derivative work. XLerate (talk) 08:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Following on from the recent renaming of the article on Tasman to Tasman Region, I'd like to propose a fairly substantial change to the names of some of our NZ articles and categories. Before taking any of the categories to CFD, though, I'd like to run it by here and WPNZ first to see whether it would be worthwhile.

At the moment, the articles on our various official regions are titled in a fairly haphazard way. We have Wellington Region, Otago, and Canterbury, New Zealand, for instance. This could make for confusion - the article Gisborne, New Zealand is about both the city and region, Bay of Plenty is abotu both the region and the bay itself, and there's been seemingly neverending discussion about what Waikato is about. Several of the regions also shared their names with the old provinces, each of which has (or should have) its own article. Some regions have different names for different categories - we have Category:Marlborough, New Zealand and Category:Marlborough Region geography stubs, and Northland Region is the key article in Category:Northland, New Zealand (Southland is also like this).

I'd like to propose that the main articles for each of the regions, and any categories named for those regions, be in the form Foo Region (e.g., Otago Region, Bay of Plenty Region). As far as I know, we don't share any region names with regions of other countries (despite there being other Canterburies and Marlboroughs, there is no other Canterbury Region or Marlborough Region).

This would leave:

• Auckland Region / Category:Auckland Region

No change.

• Bay of Plenty Region / Category:Bay of Plenty Region

Currently at Bay of Plenty / Category:Bay of Plenty - four subcategories also use this format

• Canterbury Region / Category:Canterbury Region

Currently at Canterbury, New Zealand (with redirect from above name) / Category:Canterbury, New Zealand - four subcategories also use this form

• Gisborne Region / Category:Gisborne Region (is this the official name? Regions of New Zealand uses both "Gisborne" and "East Cape")

Article is at Gisborne, New Zealand (with redirect from above form); category is as is (currently uses Gisborne, not East Cape), as are all its subcategories

• Hawke's Bay Region / Category:Hawke's Bay Region

Currently at Hawke's Bay / Category:Hawke's Bay - four subcategories use this form, and one more uses "Hawke's Bay region"

• Manawatu-Wanganui Region / Category:Manawatu-Wanganui Region

Currently at Manawatu-Wanganui / Category:Manawatu-Wanganui - four subcategories use this form

• Marlborough Region / Category:Marlborough Region

article is at Marlborough, New Zealand (with redirect from above); category is at Category:Marlborough, New Zealand - all but one of the subcategories already use "Marlborough Region"

• Nelson Region / Category:Nelson Region

article is at Nelson, New Zealand (with redirect from above); category is as is, as are all subcats except Category:Nelson, New Zealand, which is about the city

• Northland Region / Category:Northland Region

Article name as is; category currently at Category:Northland, New Zealand - four subcategories also use this form

• Otago Region / Category:Otago Region

article is at Otago; category is at Category:Otago - three subcategories also use this form

• Southland Region / Category:Southland Region

Article name as is; category currently at Category:Southland, New Zealand - two subcategories also use this form, and a third uses simply "Southland"

• Taranaki Region / Category:Taranaki Region

article is at Taranaki; category is at Category:Taranaki - four subcategories also use this form

• Tasman Region / Category:Tasman Region

article is as is; category is at Category:Tasman, New Zealand - three subcategories also use this form

• Waikato Region / Category:Waikato Region

article is at Waikato; category is at Category:Waikato - two subcategories also use this form, another two use "Waikato Region"

• Wellington Region / Category:Wellington Region

No change.

• West Coast Region / Category:West Coast Region

article is at West Coast, New Zealand, category is at Category:West Coast, New Zealand - four subcategories also use this form.

So that would require moving 11 articles and 52 categories (possibly more articles, given there are things like List of schools in Otago). It's a fair amount of worth, but most of it would be by bot (after CFD) - I think it'd be worthwhile in the long run. Any thoughts? Grutness...wha? 10:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

A complicating factor is that districts sometimes span more than one region; Taupo District spans four. This complicates dividing geographical articles by region. For the "List of schools in <region>" articles, I have to date ignored this, and simply put the schools in Stratford District within List of schools in Taranaki, New Zealand, even though part of Stratford District is in the Manawatu-Wanganui Region.

For articles on rivers, it might make sense to put them into categories based on region, because the regions are based on watersheds, but for other geographical articles, I'd prefer to see us move towards categorisation by district/territorial authority.-gadfium 10:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd wager good money that more people identify with the region they're in than the district - certainly if I were looking for an article on Arrowtown, say, I'd expect to look in an Otago regional category rather than a Queenstown-Lakes district one. But that's not the point I'm trying to make - we currently do use regions for all articles, bujt the category and article names are all over the shop. The only thing I'm concerned about is trying to get all the categories and articles named uniformly - it makes little sense having articles called Auckland Region, Otago, and Marlborough, New Zealand. It's also worth noting that most district articles are at Foo District - doing the same with the regions would be sensible IMO, especially in cases where there can be major confusion (e.g., Gisborne (city or region), Bay of Plenty (bay or region)). Grutness...wha? 11:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd be wary of going strictly by regional council boundaries. The problem is that there is no single obvious way of describing an area unit larger than a territorial local authority. Regional councils aren't anywhere near as visible as city or district councils, and some regional council boundaries don't fit what broad geographic area people think they belong in (such as the Canterbury region also including Kurow, Otematata and Omarama; and Kaikoura). Land district and old provincial boundaries also diverge from common assumptions (Kingston is in Southland Land District; East Gore was in Otago Province). Going too far too soon could end up opening a big can of worms. Daveosaurus (talk) 12:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with naming the categories and primary article "Foo Region", and setting categories at Commons the same also (which are all "Region of Foo" at the moment). "Foo Region" are the names used in the legislation.

This would make one simple, uniform system, rather than the mixture at the moment - common name, country dab (Canterbury, New Zealand), as well as legislation name. XLerate (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. For the Gisborne and Nelson regions, I would favour splitting the regional material out of the existing articles immediately to form new Region articles rather than renaming the articles, which are primarily about the cities.

I suggest the proposal be extended to Districts as well, so we have each district with both an article and category, as in Far North District and Category:Far North District. Where there are current articles which combine information about a district and its major city, eg Wairoa, then the article should not be renamed, but at some point the material on the district should be split out into its own article.

An exception might be Chatham Islands, and Category:Chatham Islands. The Chatham Islands are a special territorial authority, but I think it would be unintuitive to rename the article or the category to "Chatham Islands Region" or to "Chatham Islands District"

I'm not sure how to deal with the cities which are also territorial authorities, since many cities will need disambiguation whether called eg "Hamilton" or "Hamilton City". I think we could leave this part of the problem for a later date.-gadfium 20:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely about the Chatham Islands. I don't think many cities will need disambiguation, though - intuitively, Hamilton, New Zealand would be about the city - this is the main way that town and city articles are done on Wikipedia worldwide. If anything the way thing are at the moment is counterintuitive - I'd automatically expect Gisborne, New Zealand to be about the city, but it's about both the town and the region. It'd be relatively straightforward to turn it into two separate articles, with hatnotes if necessary linking the the other article in each case. That's pretty much what we already do with Whangarei and Whangarei District and the like. Grutness...wha? 23:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to go ahead with this on a piecemeal basis, starting with some of the less controversial or problematic ones - I'm taking Category:Northland, New Zealand and its subtypes to WP:CFD. Grutness...wha? 23:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Rather than having a map created for every location in NZ we should use Template:Location map if it is part on the approp infobox. Template:Infobox settlement has the ability to have a generic NZ map with a marked location. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

We have these available location maps for New Zealand so far. Grutness produces the maps and I integrate them into the location map system.-gadfium 03:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm doing something wrong, but my pin comes out slightly off at Ngawi, New Zealand (compare the pin in the map to where you see it on Google Maps if you click through). Lanma726 (talk) 03:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The location maps depend on accurate borders being entered at, in this case, Template:Location map New Zealand North Island. I entered these borders by estimating the latitude and longitude of the edges of the map, but it is difficult to make this estimation when the borders do not include land. You may be able to determine these coordinates more accurately. The South Island map coordinates are probably even less accurate. See User talk:Gadfium/archive49#Cust map.-gadfium 03:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi folks, just wondered if you are OK about having more than a thousand articles in your project that are about the various species of molluscs that live in your general vicinity. Some of the land snails and even some of the marine species do appear to be endemic, but a lot of the marine species live elsewhere in the Indo-Pacific, so are not New Zealand specialities. It's no skin off my nose either way, but I just wondered what you thought about this question. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

They're not as cute and cuddly as our national icons, the kiwi and tuatara, but perhaps more so than the weta. We're a tolerant and inclusive WikiProject, so we're happy to adopt some molluscs, and we don't discriminate against bivalves.

Those molluscs which are not endemic should be dropped from the WikiProject, but it might be more trouble than its worth to go through all the articles within category:Molluscs of New Zealand and determine endemicity.-gadfium 01:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Gadfium. When I have more time, if I notice species that I know occur all over the Indo-Pacific, I will remove your project tag, if you feel that's OK. Invertzoo (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found a number of concerns with the article and have delisted it from Good Article status as it no longer meets the criteria nd is likley to need considerable work to regain it. You can see the review at Talk:Crowded House/GA1. If you do not agree with my assessment you may challenge it at WP:GAR. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated List of 1888–1889 New Zealand Native football team matches for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Hayley Westenra/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the problems with dead links, and Jezhotwells has confirmed that the article retains GA status.-gadfium 01:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I have added the information that Air New Zealand, the national airline of New Zealand and a major airline and corporation, is headquartered in Auckland City, which is comparable in population to Fort Worth, Texas (in 2000). Some users have continued to remove this information, saying that because the information about Auckland City's economy is incomplete, it should not be listed. I strongly oppose this concept, especially considering the fact that {{expand|section}} exists and that, the information about the headquarters is sourced to reliable publications that have written in detail articles about the headquarter facilities, which are located in the City of Auckland. We know how many people (about) work at the central HQ facility (about 1,000) and we know the market capitalization of Air New Zealand. Air New Zealand has a market capitalization of 1,331,553,351 . Writing about a company with this market capitalization and 1,000 employees at the central headquarters says a lot about Auckland City. See Talk:Auckland_City#Economy WhisperToMe (talk) 07:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• I have since found more information that should settle the issue: http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/council/projects/cbdproject/docs/theeconomyofcbd%20.pdf - This 2003 report states that Air New Zealand, along with two other companies, are three of the ten largest companies in New Zealand that have their headquarters in Auckland City. While Air New Zealand since moved its headquarters, its new facility is in Auckland City. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be better to describe the economy as Gadfium says, and then have one or two example / prominent companies - I feel the cart is going before the horse at the moment. XLerate (talk) 08:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that sentiment. Auckland City and its CBD is important and deserves a thorough treatment of its economy rather than too much focus on just one company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

1. I have seen countless documents that have described the economy of the CBD in particular, but so far I have found nothing describing an overall economic summary of Auckland City as a whole. - EDIT: I found this info.

2. You could say they are important, but with no reliable sources describing exactly what is in Auckland CBD, one has to put what he or she has. What you see is all I have so far. I have found some news reports about the state of Auckland City's economy in 2009, so I'll add that to the Auckland City article. EDIT: In the article I found the manager stated which industries dominate Auckland City. Hopefully I'll find more sources which describe its economy as a whole.

3. This is why the {{expand|section}} exists - Because it is possible to tag a section to say this section is incomplete, it's not kosher to remove incomplete information. Yes, it is true that an economic summary of Auckland City is needed, but that doesn't mean one should remove what we have so far.

4. The report states clearly that only three of the largest New Zealand companies (as of 2003) have their head offices in Auckland City; so while a lot of workers are there, of the largest companies only three have their main offices there.

5. Part of the reason why Air NZ has more text is because its particular headquarters facilities are discussed in detail in reliable sources. I am not sure I will find reports regarding the headquarters of the other two companies with head offices in Auckland City.

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I notice that some articles have http://www.safe-nz.org.nz/ as a source. Am I right in thinking that as a political pressure group the Sensible Sentencing Trust is not considered a reliable impartial source? On the positive side most of the pages wikipedia links to have at least one (but usually only one) source (usually a new article), so maybe we should link directly to that? Stuartyeates (talk) 09:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think links to specific articles on partisan websites are okay, where those articles are primarily factual rather than opinion. However, at least some of the articles at the Sensible Sentencing Trust add too much opinion. I'm looking at the link from Bega schoolgirl murders as an example. This article is used to reference two facts; that he grew up in Opotiki, and that he is liable for deportation back to NZ at the end of his sentence. The last paragraph (the one in italics), which calls him "this creature", makes this an undesirable reference. There also appears to be a problem with copyright in this link, as they appear to republish an article from the Otago Daily Times. It would be preferable for us to link directly to the newspaper if it is available online, or to an equivalent source. There are numerous google hits for '"Lindsay Hoani Beckett" Opotiki', and at least one is likely to be a satisfactory reference. The suggestion that he will be deported appears to be speculation, and should be removed from our article.-gadfium 20:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

List of links to safe-nz.org.nz from Wikipedia, for convenience.-gadfium 21:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at many of those pages, and where possible updated them to point to non-partisan sites. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I am active in New Zealand topics in german wiki, so i am interested in good maps. The new LINZ50 topographic maps of New Zealand can be downloaded for free at LINZ webpage, but other people appear to have the same idea to... so my 54Mbit connection downloads with only 2kb/sec = quite annoying. Are there any faster mirrors or has anybody a ftp download for the maps ? -- Andy king50 (talk) 16:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I get actual speed around 300 kilobytes / sec downloading maps from LINZ, max speed for my connection, trying it now is the same. I don't know if you've tried http://www.nztopoonline.linz.govt.nz/ with the new faster viewing option? You can get to maximum detail with two zooms. XLerate (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

thanks... I did not know this page. For most working purposes it is a good alternative. -- Andy king50 (talk) 06:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: the speed problem seems to be restricted to highly polulated areas and work days. Weekend download for low pop. areas are much better using multiple downloads. Server itself runs with at least 2 MBit/s in low res maps..-- Andy king50 (talk) 10:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC).

As a foreigner reading about New Zealand, articles such as Te Reo (TV) are just about unintelligible, containing Maori words and phrases without translation or linking to an explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.204.115 (talk) 07:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point, though - apart from the programme names and presenter names, there are only four terms which should be problematic, and one of them (Te reo Maori) was linked. The others, (kapa haka, kaumatua, and tikanga) are all now linked, though the article still looks suspiciously like a copyvio from somewhere and needs to be put into a more Wikipedia-like form. Grutness...wha? 08:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

thanks for linking, at least the term problem should be fixed. -- Andy king50 (talk) 11:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I've signed us up at the toolserver for stats on the most-visited pages tagged with WPNZ. This will appear as WikiProject New Zealand/Popular Pages once approved. dramatic (talk) 07:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Great. I didn't know this was an option.-gadfium 08:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic, took about a week to do manually last year. Will it include redirects (e.g. Maori)? XLerate (talk) 09:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Any progress on this? Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Popular Pages is still a redlink.-gadfium 19:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

They get created at the beginning of the month. Check again next week. And I think it will probably be called Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Popular pages. John Carter (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we need a Government of New Zealand article. It is current a redir to Politics of New Zealand. Governance is different to, but linked to politics. Some of the stuff in the latter article is more applicable to the former. Note that there is already a Category:Government of New Zealand and a Governments of New Zealand article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I have put an NZ cat up for renaming at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 1. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

After a recent request, I added WikiProject New Zealand to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 00:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, thank you. XLerate (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Something is off with Talk:Yr Head Is A Rock. It seems like a talk page for a redirect page? That's just odd. Maybe a loose end from something? Stuartyeates (talk) 07:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks to be a loose end per this edit, I think the talk page could be redirected to Talk:Shihad (album) also. XLerate (talk) 10:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a heads up that I have placed a list of roughly 3,000 NZ individuals (Or individuals present in the NZ dictionary of biographies) in the requested articles section of this project page. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 05:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

A vote to move Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom to Elizabeth II is being held at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. —what a crazy random happenstance 02:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

How about a sub-WikiProject of WikiProject New Zealand Music? It would be similar to WikiProject Australian music, with articles' talk pages still wearing the {{WPNZ}} badge, but with a |music=yes parameter. There are many articles relating to New Zealand music, so wouldn't it be a good idea to organise a WikiProject simply for their purpose? Adabow (talk) 09:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

With or without a WikiProject New Zealand Music I think it might be a good idea to start creating Year in New Zealand music articles (see also the section below). 2010 in New Zealand music or 2009 in New Zealand music would be a start. These could use the same format as 2010 in Canadian music or 2009 in British music. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Definitely support this, DerbyCountyinNZ! Adabow (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

A new user has attempted to add the following sections to 2010 in New Zealand: "Visits from the Famous and Royals around the world" and "Bands/Artist on Tour". I think these are an excessive trivialisation of the sort of sections that should be included on year pages. I can find no other instance of these categories being used in Year in Country articles (although I haven't checked them all, just the most obvious ones). There would undoubtedly be endless arguments about who qualifies as 'Famous', the only exceptions would probably be the Monarch of the UK and the Pope (if those tours involved large-scale public parades). The vast majority of musical acts visiting NZ could hardly be considered notable even on a year by year basis (the exception would probably be The Beatles). Annual events, such as the Big Day Out, are excluded from Year articles although they persist in Year in Music articles. If the were Year in New Zealand music articles (as there are for some other countries) visiting artists would belong there.

Opinions on this? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. State visits etc. are General events items and don't need a subsection. Heck, we need something to fill in general events! Concerts etc. aren't needed - unless, as you say, they are news events. I would like to start an economy section, but never having tried to understand economics, I'm not sure which available stats are most important or useful. dramatic (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that these events don't need separate sections, but we have set the bar too high if the events section does not receive any updates in a month. I think William's visit is not unreasonable to include, especially as he represented the Queen for the first time while he was here.-gadfium 01:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I like the economy section idea - statistics I can suggest are

• GDP with annual % change, per capita, and by sector %
• Inflation
• Unemployment
• Official Cash Rate
• USD exchange rate
• Balance of payments

although what's available historically maybe another matter. XLerate (talk) 01:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've just tidied up the recently added New Zealander of the Year section (which obviously also needs its own article) and noticed that the Art & Lit, Music, Television etc sections don't seem to make sense and have been poorly and inconsistently formatted even over just the last few years. If anyone else has suggestions on the best format for these it would be a great help (I won't be able to give it any serious thought until next week). Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Peter Craig Pennell, Air Force navigator in WWII. Can anybody help with this? He seems to have been famous at the time, but I've gone as far as Google will take me. DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I know a Kiwi who flew bombers in WW2 who is still alive (can't be too many of them). I've sent him an e-mail to see whether he can help. If he can help, how can I get his contact details to you in a more private manner? (by the way, I've amended your item and wikilinked to the subject) Schwede66 00:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, here's the response - "xxx doesn't know Peter Pennell. Sorry. He also thinks that Canberra bombers were flown late in the war. Have you contacted the Airforce Museum at Wigram?" Sounds like a reasonable suggestion to me - would surprise me if they couldn't help. http://www.airforcemuseum.co.nz/main/Contact/ Schwede66 07:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Canberra bomber did not become operational until 1951. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

One claim to notability seems dubious. (See the article's talk page.) -- Avenue (talk) 09:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

And up for deletion. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Studylink redirects to Ministry of Social Development (New Zealand) as I write this, and is only covered by a sentence or two. This organization seems important enough to have its own article, since it must have tens of thousands of student clients. I could probably write a bit about it but I can't easily locate any external sources to show its notability. If anyone could suggest some I might create an article on it - does anyone know of some reliable independent sources that discuss Studylink as the subject of an article/book etc? Richard001 (talk) 11:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi

please would u include details of how maori seats etc and maori played role in development of womens suffrage eg in votes to bring it in195.188.208.250 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC).

Your input is welcome. Cheers, postdlf (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI, {{New Zealand English}} has been nomiated for deletion. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I've removed Talk:Heliacal rising from WPNZ. The article does mention the Maori (amongst other groups of people), but the subject is of global scope and hasn't been added to any other such wikiproject. Please do revert my change if I've misunderstood anything. –Syncategoremata (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Archive 3/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

It might be interesting to compare the output against our existing list. I presume the bot would overwrite our marking of items as fixed? dramatic (talk) 09:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The bot will probably not be as good as your manual list, except daily the bot will automatically remove articles that no longer have the unreferenced BLP tag on them.

Great point :) I will be interested in the results, and will watch this page. Okip 04:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Archive 3/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.

There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.

If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 23:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hadronic Matter An overview

An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter

As detailed in last week's Signpost, WikiProject Wikipedia books is undertaking a cleanup all Wikipedia books. Particularly, the {{saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of the books. Title, subtitle, cover-image, and cover-color can all be specified, and an HTML preview of the cover will be generated and shown on the book's page (an example of such a cover is found on the right). Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class New Zealand articles should have covers.

If you need help with the {{saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.

This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 22:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot ^{(owner • talk)} 22:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Some adjudication may be needed at Talk:New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme. Mrfebruary (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I have just rated the importance of Robert Lawson (architect) to WPNZ and saw that it is a former featured article! At the moment it is currently B-Class, and I thought someone might like to request a peer review and/or nominate it for good article status. I won't get too involved, as I know nothing about the topic, but it seems like this could easily make GA, so could someone with a bit more knowledge of the area please give it a bit of attention? Thanks, Adabow (talk) 10:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It's been quite a while now since the last meetup in Auckland. I wouldn't mind going to one this year some time, maybe around June/July? I haven't really been working on New Zealand articles that much that I can think of (the closest I can think of recently is the Asian paper wasp entry I started), but would like to meet some more contributors, keep the meetup thing going, and talk about promotion of Wikipedia contribution. I'm interested in hosting some seminars and public lectures about Wikipedia at the University of Auckland too.

We would need to promote the meetup early and effectively beforehand to get a good turnout. It might be good to try to have roughly simultaneous meetups in other areas, maybe Wellington and Christchurch, if there are enough people to come (I feel bad that only Auckland ever has meetups, but don't particularly want to go far to one myself). Richard001 (talk) 10:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

There's this: Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland 5. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh. How did I not hear about it (possibly by not watching my watchlist at all, but...)? Can't be very good promotion of the event if active people can miss it, though I guess there is still time to tell others. Richard001 (talk) 09:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm expanding the article on John Evans Brown, and it would be great if others could chip in and you'll get DYK credits in return. Please see the talk page - there are some good sources listed that can be worked in.

The aim is to submit a triple DYK about Brown and his three brothers in law that were all MPs in the New Zealand Parliament. Two of the articles are new (from today and yesterday), whereas the page on Garrick has been around for a few weeks. My suggested DYK submission is:

• ... that the New Zealand Members of Parliament Francis James Garrick, John Thomas Peacock, John Evans Brown and Henry Richard Webb were brothers in law? Schwede66 06:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a proposal on the WikiProject New Zealand/governments talk page to move the page to Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/politics, thus broadening the scope of the project. There's been very little discussion so far. Can you please comment on the government talk page if you have an opinion? Schwede66 00:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons (UBLPs) aims to reduce the number of unreferenced biographical articles to under 30,000 by June 1, primarily by enabling WikiProjects to easily identify UBLP articles in their project's scope. There were over 52,000 unreferenced BLPs in January 2010 and this has been reduced to 35,715 as of May 1. A bot is now running daily to compile a list of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Unreferenced BLPs. Currently you have approximately 187 articles to be referenced. Other project lists can be found at User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects/Templates and User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please have a look at Gary Brain. It's been up for a while and shows no real progress in wikification. Additionally, as indicated by File talk:Brain receving grammy award for conducting finest orchestra cd for 1997.jpg some claims in the article may have been insufficiently qualified. I'd propose the page for deletion myself, but I have a real-world COI on this one. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The pic say "Grammy", the text says "Grammy/Echo prize". It is definitely not a Grammy, and there is no source for the Grammy?Echo prize claim. The text of that section is extremely poor to the point that I would be tempted to remove it entirely unless references can be found (I'm not going to search further). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi? This interests me somewhat

So? I whipped into the NZSO website & grabbed this result?

As maybe the "spelling" for your article is only "phonetically" spelt?

http://www.nzso.co.nz/search?go=yes&keywords=Gary+Brain&Search=Search

Results 1 - 4 from a total of 4 for "Gary Brain".

The last is this

?

2009 Discography

JANACEK: Orchestral Suites from the Operas Peter Breiner, music director of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra, has done us a service in arranging... news_and_media/2009_discography - 100%

?

I may of course - be miles off the mark.. but I will dig deeper

Ok -so? It's NOT in NZ?

http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-nz:IE-SearchBox&q=Gary+Brain+conducting+orchestra+1997&ei=O2HoS_S8B5OssgPq1tXUCA&sa=X&oi=revisions_inline&ct=unquoted-query-link&ved=0CBUQgwM

Amazon has this CD ?

Here is the excert - from a google result.

Amazon.ca: Gary Brain - Classical: Music1 by Philharmonia Orchestra of London (Orchestra), Gary Brain (Conductor), ... (Conductor), and Czeslaw Marek (Composer) by Koch Schwann (Audio CD - 1997) ... www.amazon.ca/gary-brain.../s?...Gary%20Brain...n%3A962464%2Ck%3AGary%20Brain... - Cached - Similar

& the search header

About 35,100 results (0.30 seconds)

http://www.amazon.ca/gary-brain-Classical-Music/s?ie=UTF8&keywords=Gary%20Brain&rh=n%3A962464%2Ck%3AGary%20Brain&page=1

Does this help? Roxburgh NZ (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Roxburgh NZ (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Woohoo?

I "found" it?

OneSquared's Presentation of Brian Harmer's WYSIWYG New Zealand ...19 Sep 1997 ... New Zealand-born conductor Gary Brain has won classical music's ... The conductor and the London Philharmonia Orchestra won the Echo award for their .... Date: 18 September 1997 Brian Dooley Wellington, NZ CURRENCIES The ... wysiwygnews.com/1997_News/1997September19.html - Cached - Similar

Reference:- SAME RESULTS PAGE - just lower down.

http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-nz:IE-SearchBox&q=Gary+Brain+conducting+orchestra+1997&ei=O2HoS_S8B5OssgPq1tXUCA&sa=X&oi=revisions_inline&ct=unquoted-query-link&ved=0CBUQgwM

DIRECT LINK

http://wysiwygnews.com/1997_News/1997September19.html

(& it's a) - DATED NEWS ARTICLE

AND - (in my own words) - although NOT a Grammy as such... It was the Classical musical "style" EQUIVALENT - (to the grammy) - and as such WAS - in classical music terminology - a "grammy"

Midway down - on WYSIWYG New Zealand News as the "EDITORS" ARTICLE

http://wysiwygnews.com/1997_News/1997September19.html

WYSIWYG New Zealand News

19 September 1997 Copyright © 1995 Brian Harmer

dated Tuesday, 16 September (of which there are FOUR entries)

this GRAMMY ARTICLE - IS the last (woohoo - I found something - CONCRETE)

Cheers - This has made my day - THANKYOU for allowing me to help

Roxburgh NZ (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

(re- the ONLY section- on Wikipedia:Roxburgh, NZ - "entitled" thus- is incorrect) --- Entertainment ---

Roxburgh has New Zealand's oldest operating cinema. Located in Scotland Street, it opened in October 1898 as is still operating. The cinema seats 258 persons and is one of only four cinemas left in Central Otago. Live shows are also performed

MAJOR EDITING is hereby being given (unbiased) by a local resident

every saturday, since major restoration was recently completed [exact citation of completion date needed].

These weekly screenings are usually advertised up to three weeks in advance, via the weekly published Teviot Bulletin , and some important screenings are often given longer lead-in times - especially when special films are "coming soon" (such as the locally produced films of- In His Fathers Den, & The Lord of The Rings Trilogy).

Roxburgh NZ (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

References source:- Teviot Bulletin (a free circulation that is usually printed in back & white - except on special occasions when colour is used - and consists of two sheets of double side printing A4 - which has recently expanded to a fifth page - and is delivered on Fridays to every household in the "triangulated" areas of Raes Junction at the southern point, Heriot to the west, & as far north as Fruitlands).

Reference source - locally obtained by author - can be quickly be verified direct with the Teviot Bulletin Publishing Staff

by

phone +64-3-4468-894

fax +64-3-4468-704 or

via email tvbulletin@xtra.co.nz

Although the author Roxburgh NZ (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC) could abtain permission indirectly, it is advised that Wikipedia Admin obtain direct permission to "upload" copied details of printed copyright materials - directly - from the teviot bulletin Staff

Also

As the author is an avid video "partaker" (via two Nokia 6120Classic - 3G cellphones)

The author Roxburgh NZ (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC) is easily willing to take & or make - upon Wikipedia Admin Request - as many photos & videos of the whole general area (from as far south a Bluff - to as far north as Timaru & maybe sometimes Christchurch) ... for inclusion in either this article - or for insertion into any of the many others subject projects within this lower South Island of New Zealand - (being the home turf_area - that the author has resided "in" for 56yrs)

The author already HAS ... several films already running on www.youtube.com/QUIX4U (most available for downloading in mp4 format according to my edit page?) - depicting not only the Roxburgh area & many of it's surrounds, including some very descriptive videos on the Fruitlands Goldfeild Days & on Mitchels Historic Cottage to be precise, as well as a video sequence of both stills & video footage - from Roxburgh to Queenstown & The Crown Range Road, involving the added inclusion of comentated footage - on three Snow Cat Machines at Shingle Creek, between Roxburgh & Fruitlands, but several into & around lower Canterbury - and even some unique views into & around Auckland - (and if needed - the audio re-masters which accompany them - can be muted - so as to not detract from the scenery)

Roxburgh NZ (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Sincerely trying to be ever helpfull - & especially going well out of ones way, to showcase the area & environs, flora & fauna - (mostly to foreign hitch-hikers) Roxburgh NZ (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC) My verification can also be easily checked via

http://www.quix4u.com

http://www.youtube.com/QUIX4U

&

http://www.google.com/profiles/QUIX4U

Roxburgh NZ (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh & P.S... My elderly father is a literal bank of photographic memory - and at 96 is still vividly co-herent and a much sought after - research resource of LOCAL knowledge - (by others) as he has lived almost his entire LIFE - in the Manuherikia Valley, (apart from 20 or so years of annual "winter" excursions all around Australia & has done similar "exploits" in Germany in WW2)

Roxburgh NZ (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Any photographs you've taken yourself, you can upload to Wikipedia without any "permission" as such from the Admins (except the limitations of internet speed in your area). Just follow the instructions while uploading and remember to confirm that they are your own work and that Wikipedia can use them. I'm no photographer, but I've taken a couple of quick snaps of towns while travelling and they haven't been deleted out of the system (see the Wyndham, New Zealand or Henley, New Zealand pages for examples). Lists of places that could do with photos include http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_requested_photographs_in_Southland_Region and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_requested_photographs_in_Otago . This isn't an exhaustive list - for example, if you have any photographs that you've taken of Kelso before it became a ghost town, I reckon that one would be a real asset to Wikipedia, even though the town isn't on the list. Just be warned when contributing that I find your writing style very difficult to read; if you contribute much textual information you'll find that other people will edit it and reformat it and hack it around to make it fit the style of the article.Daveosaurus (talk) 08:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi all, this is just a friendly hello to let you know that the Military History project has undergone some changes recently which have resulted in a merge between the Australian task force and the New Zealand task force to create a new task force called the Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force. We currently have very few active New Zealand members, so if you are interested in getting involved please stop by. The task force can be found here: WP:ANZSP. There is a list of articles that are requested and others that need expansion. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Can someone take a quick look at Edward Cephas John Stevens and see if you think it can be nominated as a GA? I think it meets the criteria, but I may be jumping the gun here. Adabow (talk) 06:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed a PROD from this yesterday and added some project templates to the discussion. Maybe someone from this project can bring the article up to standards and add some additional sources. Maybe from here. Thanks. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the page as-is needs a copyvio speedydelete, which I've just tagged it for, the original editor pretty much copy-pasted the article from the church's website. I'd suggest writing it from scratch in userspace or a project subpage instead. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 14:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I've also notified WP:Anglican of this. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 14:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Ben Hana, aka Blanket Man. In need of serious, urgent clean-up, probably a re-write. A deletion may be in order even. Adabow (talk) 10:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I've done a cleanup, but there's still stuff I couldn't verify with a quick Google News search. I'm going to keep an eye on it in case of vandalism, though. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 11:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I am intending to get Timeline of New Zealand history of to FL status. You can help by adding (or removing) events that are (or are not) notable enough to be in it. If you can reference stuff, that's great; if not, I am doing a sweep to find a ref for each entry. Adabow (talk) 09:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I've requested a peer review of List of former territorial authorities in New Zealand as a first step towards getting it to FL status. dramatic (talk) 07:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Considering we have this noticeboard, shouldn't this talk page be kept for discussions around the WikiProject itself? At the moment they seem very similar, just with different discussions. Adabow (talk) 10:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

possibly - it's hard to tell which page is followed by more people. I put my entry (above) on this page because the alertbot (which would normally list peer reviews on the project page) is broken. dramatic (talk) 10:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This tool is useful for telling how many people watch a given page, as long as there's at least 30 watchers of said page. Currently it's 119 for this page and 126 for the noticeboard. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 10:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

...and I bet you that of those, at least 100 watch both lists. Which brings us back to Adabow's question. Schwede66 13:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Schwede66, that's exactly what I thought - and that it would probably make sense to have one page for discussion, since the aims/audiences of both are effectively the same. Kahuroa (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph at the top of this page already recommends using this page for discussing the WikiProject, and the noticeboard for issues regarding NZ-related articles. This seems logical enough, but in practice the two pages are being used for more or less the same thing – with little discussion about the WikiProject itself. This being the case, I also prefer using one page for all discussions. WP:NZWNB seems to be the (slightly) more popular of the two, and so I recommend redirecting this page there (the Australian solution, if you will). – Liveste (talk • edits) 20:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Checking back, WPNZ was founded in September '04, but it's talk page wasn't used until September '05. The noticeboard was started in November '04. On the one hand, most Wikiproject talk pages seem to be for general discussion of page issues within the scope of the project, with little meta-discussion about the project itself. On the other hand, there is a well-established network of noticeboard pages, primarily country-based. Personally, I think the concept of project "membership" is limited to formulation of project policy and review/assessment teams, so the project talk should be open to all. THat weakens the distinction between "Wikipedians from X" and "belonging to a project". I guess the only practical way to merge is to redirect the noticeboard here.dramatic (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the two feasible options are:

1. Make this page strictly for discussing the WikiProject, not its articles, or
2. Redirect WP:NZWNB to here. Adabow (talk) 05:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

My preference would be for the first option. All it really needs is a bit of a clean up (i.e. shift all the talk from this page to the other), and then some ongoing management (say two or three people cutting and pasting new talk from this page to the other when it ended up in the wrong spot). In no time, everybody will get the hang of it. We've done exactly this with the politics task force pages (where discussions were distributed across both the talk page and the taskforce page) and it's now in top shape. Schwede66 06:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Schwede. Adabow (talk) 08:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

So unless there are any last-minute objections, that's what we'll do. Schwede66 00:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I've set up NZ:FAQ to give guidance on this. What needs to be done is to:

• shift content that doesn't comply with the guidelines to where it belongs, and
• develop template messages to inform editors if their items have been shifted.

Can't do it tonight, as I need some quick beauty sleep before soccer starts (got to watch Germany giving the British a bashing). Schwede66 06:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm....I was going to be a last minute objector last week, but for some reason never got round to it!. I prefer option 2. Don't see the point in having a separate page, it all relates in some shape fashion or form to the WikiProject, and since the talk page will automatically exist alongside the project page, it seems sensible to use this page and most WikiProjects I've ever passed by seem to operate this way. WikiProject page to show what the project is about, aims and tasks, permalinks and guidelines etc, talk page to discuss the project parameters and anything that comes within the boundaries of the project.--ClubOranje^T 06:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• I also think it is a bit ...odd... the way Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board's talk page redirects to itself. That is almost entirely but not quite exactly different to how almost every other page on Wikipedia works. What if I want to discuss the noticeboard? --ClubOranje^T 06:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello all, I'm a member/co-ordinator of the Military History project and have found myself working on a rewrite of the Māori Battalion (just for a change of topic, as I usually work on Australian military history articles). Anyway, I've rewritten the article up to a B class standard, but have found over the past couple of days that the article has had pieces removed from it by a dynamic IP address. To be honest I don't have the content knowledge (I just followed what the sources said) to know whether or not the IP is correct, whether they are incorrect or if it in fact vandalism. As such, I am asking for someone who mght have a bit of specific New Zealand knowledge to take a look at the article and see whether the changes are correct or not. If they are, that's fine, just let me know and I'll back off. I rewrote the article to do the topic justice, but if I've introduced inaccuracies because of my lack of content knowledge I would be disappointed in myself for not fixing them. However, equally I don't want to allow the article to get trashed again (as it was in a poor state to start off with). Thus if anyone from this project would be so kind as taking a look and letting me know what you think, I'd be very grateful. Cheers. Take care. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

They're partially correct in that the Māori Party didn't exist until fairly recently. That said, I have a feeling that the IP is wrong to make those removals, though I don't have access to sources to back me up on this. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 02:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the anon is confused rather than a vandal, but there is no connection between the battalion and the party. Most likely, the anon is not seeing talk page messages since their IP is dynamic. There's nothing much we can do but revert their edits. If they persist for more than a few days, we could semi-protect the article. Perhaps the second sentence, which is confusing them, could be reworded so instead of referring to "Māori MPs" it could refer to "MPs in the Māori seats".-gadfium 06:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

How about naming the MPs involved to remove any chance of confusion? This page from one of the article's listed sources mentions them as Sir Apirana Ngata, E. T. Tirikatene (Southern Maori) and P. K. Paikea (Northern Maori). Ngata was the MP for Eastern Māori at the time. Kahuroa (talk) 07:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks all for your input. The MPs themselves are currently named in the Formation section in the body of the article. I have wikilinked them now, as I didn't know they had articles themselves when I wrote that part of the article. I decided to leave the names out of the lead because I didn't want to put too much detail and unbalance the lead, but if you feel it should go in there, I'd be fine with adding it. I have slightly reworded the lead anyway to hopefully avoid confusion. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

No that sounds fine, nice work by the way. Kahuroa (talk) 08:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Members of WP:HWY, with members of the Infobox Accessibility Task Force, been working on a project to consolidate all of the infoboxes for highway articles into one, {{infobox road}}. This master template currently supports 48 countries, Europe (for the supranational E-routes system) and Antarctica (for the lone "highway" there). As you can see, it supports New Zealand, and I've worked to convert the articles over on New Zealand highways. If there are any improvements to be made, please let us know so that we can upgrade the level of support and improve the articles. Our goal is to make one template with consistent display for highway articles on the English Wikipedia.

We already know that the "Major cities:" label is not optimal, and that would be our next update to make, adding a replacement parameter for destinations instead of cities. A simple AWB run can switch that over once added to the template. Additionally, in the initial conversion, I placed the tourist routes into the "alternate_name" parameter, but I had placed it initially in the "system" parameter which listed it at the bottom above the links to the highway system articles. Imzadi 1979 → 23:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't spot any discussion on the mass conversion of NZ islands here to Infobox Road, perhaps you can point us in the direction? I have reverted all the changes for now until adequate consensus is formed. Jeni ^(talk) 23:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this that I can see. Seems like they assumed they could just go ahead and do it Kahuroa (talk) 06:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:BRD. --Rschen7754 16:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:SIGH. So would it be possible to address the Major cities and Tourist route issues before it goes onto the NZ pages? Kahuroa (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. As a side note, would there be a color scheme that's better for the header bars that separate the sections in the infobox? That is customizable by country or country, type or subtype. I'm working on the coding changes now for the two parameters discussed. Imzadi 1979 → 22:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request made to add the two parameters, |tourist= (will appear after length and dates) and |destinations= (will appear in the locations section. Imzadi 1979 → 23:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The parameters are now live and in the template, ready to use. Imzadi 1979 → 19:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess the creator of the NZ template might want to have an input there, personally I didn't mind the blue on Infobox road. 22:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, the template already supports cities, towns and villages. In my conversion, I had converted to cities, but they could be added to any combination of the three parameters. Just today, the new article New Zealand State Highway 57 was created, and displays towns. That article was created by Lcmortensen (talk · contribs), who I believe created the NZ infoboxes initially. Imzadi 1979 → 23:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for (belatedly) bringing this here for discussion. To me, the change seems a waste of wikieffort.

• The handful of people who are creating the NZ highway articles are already familiar with the existing template.
• A template designed to accommodate the peculiarities of every highway system in the world is necessarily much more complex. This just spends more of the wikimedia foundation's CPU time. I guarantee that in a few years time someone will say "this template is trying to do too much - it should be devolved into regional ones".
• You are adding further complexity to it to cope with our (99 maximum) articles
• In summary, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

If you do think that our template is "broke" in some aspects, it's much easier to modify our template than to convert all articles to the new one. dramatic (talk) 22:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

One comment about performance: we've been told not to worry about WMF's computing resources, per WP:PERF. Just as they are familiar with the current, editors can be just as familiar with the new. Just as there are consolidated templates for the infoboxes of all the world's different types of municipalities, there can be one consolidated template that will work for the different highway systems. The basics of a highway are the same no matter if it's in New Zealand, Japan, or Canada. They all have termini, lengths and formation dates. They all serve provinces, regions, counties, cities, towns, villages or Primary destinations. The new template has been tested for accessibility-related issues. Consolidating in the over eighty templates that have existed for highways is actually simpler than updating the eighty templates, especially when only two parameters needed to be added for NZL. Imzadi 1979 → 23:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The templates are not "broke" but there are inconsistencies between the Highway & Motorway versions.

• One uses state-highway-number and the other uses state-highway
• One uses map-image-file and the other uses image-file
• One has Direction and the other has Primary direction
• One shows length as miles and the other as mi
• One has Start and End with a clear background and the other has Start and End with a green background.

If there ends up being no consensus for using Infobox road and everyone wants to stay with a New Zealand specific infobox, then there could still be a case for merging the two inforboxes into one single infobox that works for all New Zealand roads. -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Well? Are there any further objections before restoring the conversions to Infobox road? --Rschen7754 06:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus here for conversions, full stop. From how I read this discussion, NZ members are perfectly happy with the infobox that is already used here and do not need to be converted to the American version. Jeni ^(talk) 10:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You have already made your opinion very clear; let's let the others respond. --Rschen7754 10:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Jeni, your opinion has been noted, but as a blanket statement, it is wrong. Since this discussion was opened, a NZ editor has created an article that doesn't use the NZ-specific infobox, rather it uses infobox road. That same editor has updated another article to revert your reversion of the infobox. This same has been asked to comment here, but hasn't yet. Hopefully we'll hear from that editor soon. Additionally, please stop characterizing the infobox as "American" as it is in use in three dozen other countries in the world, many of which never created separate infoboxes. Imzadi 1979 → 16:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should give the other editor - who created the NZ infoboxes - a day or two to respond, but his edits would seem to suggest he has no objections. After those few days are up, are there any practical reasons not to go with the change? Kahuroa (talk) 08:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late replying - sloppy internet connection recently. Some points I have to add:

• I designed both templates as a direct New Zealand version of the UK motorway infobox - I didn't even know Infobox Road existed, and even then it was designed for North American roads.
• Originally the Motorway box was designed with the Northern Motorway in mind - back then it was State Highway 1 south of Silverdale and State Highway 1A north.
• I created the SH57 article with infobox road as a trial - it works well with State Highway 57 as there are no major complications with Tourist Routes.
• We still have no infobox suitable for both the conditions of all-motorway State Highways (SH18 and SH20), or for touring routes.

I have no opinion on whether to keep or replace - although I do think the NZ-specific infoboxes are getting a bit old and do need to be updated if they are to be continued in use. If Infobox Road is to be used, the data for New Zealand needs to be updated to allow defaluting of the Maintenance field to the New Zealand Transport Agency, and to have State Highway Succession (e.g. SH2 article succession is SH1 before and SH3 afterwards Until there is such a consensus, I will use Infobox Road on a limited number of articles (namely SH20, SH57, Auckland Northern Motorway, Southern Scenic Route) as a showcase trial. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 05:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

By State Highway Succession - do you mean like California State Route 78 has on its infobox? If so, the functionality is already built into IBR. --Rschen7754 05:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I've added the links onto New Zealand State Highway 57. Is this what you wanted? A default maint can be set for all infoboxes be creating the link in Template:Infobox road/maint/NZL. -- WOSlinker (talk) 08:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The maint template is now set up and active. I added the browser parameter values to SH20 so that it would show in addition to SH57. Imzadi 1979 → 23:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Re New Zealand State Highway 57- there's a typo: Motoroways and Expressways. Kahuroa (talk) 23:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for the catch! Imzadi 1979 → 00:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

From reading the above discussion I gather that the NZ editors are okay with the conversions to Infobox road. Can these conversions thus be done? --Rschen7754 18:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been told by the last remaining objector that they no longer oppose the conversions, so I or someone else will do them shortly. --Rschen7754 07:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at this deletion discussion, if anyone has anything useful to add, please do so!--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 06:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This gentleman has been put into NZ categories, and now the WP NZ banner has been added to his talk page. But there is not one single mention of New Zealand in the article. Not one. Why is he being claimed for New Zealand? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You mean Neal Peres Da Costa. You could ask User:Marc87 who made this edit. Moriori (talk) 06:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is located here. The debate is over whether the Cook Islands and Niue and sovereign states and should be included on the list. It has also been suggested that a few pages be created to this end to explain the situation, namely pages with these possible title; Political status of the Cook Islands, Political status of Niue, Political status of states in free association with New Zealand. Regards. Outback the koala (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Two of us are at logger headers about the use of the word 'ministries' in this article, as per the talk page. It would be great to get some external input as to whether these should be called 'governments,' 'cabinets,' 'ministries' or something else entirely. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles E. Sexey. East of Borschov 12:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I created Category:History of New Zealand by region. Its subcats as well as the parent need populating. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with naming conventions for categories, but would have expected that category names are derived from the region names. For example... Ah, I see that there's already a renaming process that's been started. Schwede66 03:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated The Catlins for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

A bot is going to blank 10,000+ articles with significant contributions by User:Darius Dhlomo due to a major and chronic history of copyright violation. Judging from the number of articles on which I've seen his moniker, this may affect hundreds of articles within WPNZ. Help will be needed investigating articles once they have been blanked - Instructions are here. dramatic (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there a way that we could get a list of WPNZ articles that are affected? Schwede66 21:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Once the bot has done its job, I'll try generating one using catscan. dramatic (talk) 10:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Taranaki Wikipedians (or those who have recently visited the area), there's a new article on your newest landmark - Te Rewa Rewa Bridge. I've nominated it for DYK (Did you know?) and it's to go onto the WP homepage sometime on Wednesday (I guess). The article has been chosen including its photo as shown here. If anybody has a better photo than this, could you please upload it to Commons ASAP and leave a note here? I'll look after getting the photo exchanged if that were to happen. I reckon it's a nice opportunity to showcase Taranaki to the world - you guys have built yourself a beautiful structure! Well done. Schwede66 04:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

There's four on flickr. XLerate (talk) 06:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Can be useful for uploading from Flickr. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I probably have some still on my camera from a few weeks back. Much the same view but the mountain was clear that day. dramatic (talk) 07:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. I've grabbed the flickr images, used the nifty upload tool, and placed a request for the hook photo to be replaced. Schwede66 19:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the New Zealand articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I've had a quick look, and suggest the following. Please feel free to disagree with me!

Include:

• Religion in New Zealand

I'd like to include this, but not until cleanup tags are removed, and it reaches at least C-Class. Walkerma (talk) 03:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Exclude:

• The Catlins
• Auckland Grammar School
• New Zealand at the 2008 Summer Olympics - note: I have reassessed this from high to low importance
• New Zealand general election, 2008
• Islam in New Zealand

Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, will do. Walkerma (talk) 03:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd also suggest the following:

Include:

• New Zealand First
• Foreign relations of New Zealand
• Geography of New Zealand
• List of cities in New Zealand
• Tourism in New Zealand
• Biodiversity of New Zealand
• Agriculture in New Zealand
• New Zealand wine
• Geology of New Zealand
• List of earthquakes in New Zealand
• Volcanism in New Zealand (but I'm biased ;)
• 2010 Canterbury earthquake (ditto)

Exclude:

• St Peter's College, Auckland
• Recording Industry Association of New Zealand

Zeeland and Trieste aren't that important for our subject, but I imagine they are worth including for other reasons. --Avenue (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I now see Wikipedia:Release_Version_Nominations#Everyday_Life here that New Zealand wine has already been rejected as not important enough. --Avenue (talk) 04:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm adding all except the articles on tourism, wine, Geology, List of earthquakes, Volcanism (but I am adding the Canterbury one). Some of those I'm omitting are nice articles, and I wish I could include them, but the external interest rating is just too low. Walkerma (talk) 03:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I've responded on the v0.8 talk page, but I'll bite here, too.

include:

• Phil Goff (957 pts)
• Central Otago Gold Rush (782 pts)
• Kowhai (our national flower) (812 pts)
• possibly Clutha River (1067 pts)

exclude:

• The three region articles. There's no point in having articles on West Coast Region, Manawatu-Wanganui Region and Waikato Region if you're not also going to include all the others.

I'd also be tempted to add New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987 (surprisingly, only 518 pts). Other than that, I agree pretty much with Avenue's and Adabow's comments above. Grutness...wha? 04:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

One thing uniquely Kiwi are Māori electorates. That article isn't very comprehensive, though. I've recently written First Māori elections, which goes a lot more into the historical context of that issue. It's quite new and I don't know where the score that the toolserver lists show comes from. Both have a relatively low score of 225, so are way below the cut off for articles that have been chosen (>1050). Ok, I'm probably biased, but one of those articles should be added. Schwede66 06:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The score is based on class, importance, and how long the article has had the assessments (I think). Therefore a relatively new article will probably have a pretty low score.

Māori Party might be more worthwhile as a v0.8 article... Grutness...wha? 09:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but then would we need New Zealand foreshore and seabed controversy? Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm adding Goff and Clutha River, but excluding Kowhai and the Gold Rush articles as being just too low (47 hits per day, and only one other language version - these stats make it very hard to justify). I will omit the regions as requested, and add Māori Party, but not the foreshore controversy. Walkerma (talk) 03:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the length of the assessment is not a factor; however, a very new article will typically score low because (a) it won't have many links in and (b) fewer people will look at the article, because outside people will be less likely to link to it or recommend it. Walkerma (talk) 03:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

A request: Geography of New Zealand gets a lot of hits for obvious reasons, but it's a pretty basic article - it would be great if this could be expanded a bit, to include some of the topics that currently reside only in the much more extensive sub-articles. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 03:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

New Zealand Acts as enacted is now online, showing NZ legislation as it was when first passed. --Helenalex (talk) 00:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - that's already been useful. --Avenue (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, how cool is that? I've just written something about the First Māori elections and here's the 1867 legislation just sitting there. Brilliant resource. Schwede66 02:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

What's the policy on standardising on Māori work names from double-vowel to macronised orthography? There are several in Bruce Biggs which are still double-vowel. I've not corrected them, not being sure I should. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

If you mean the titles of Biggs' books in that article, they were published with the double vowels in their titles and it would be a mistake to "correct" them. Just as we don't add macrons to the word Maori if that's how it was published in the title of a book. Kahuroa (talk) 08:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

If anyone feels like doing a bit of categorising, there are 29 photos in Commons Category:New Zealand that need to be placed in the correct categories and a description added. Mainly places and buildings - some of them might be useful. Kahuroa (talk) 08:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Update: They're all done now. Kahuroa (talk) 01:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This list's FLC could do with a couple more reviews, if anyone has a bit of time. Thanks in advance, Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I am new to editing on wikipedia, but I am very interested in New Zealand articles. I have spent some years as a user, however I am new to editing articles. How do I join a wikiproject? (This one). Luke021 (talk) 11:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It's easy, just add your username to the list here. --Avenue (talk) 12:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, the other day I turned Alexander River into a disambiguation page, since New Zealand's river of that name is probably undeserving of being at the main article. Someone reverted one of my moves and while I was checking naming conventions for ammunition in order to remonstrate with them, I discovered that [Rivers] generally uses bracket disambiguation, but that all New Zealand rivers are currently using comma disambiguation. The project notes that UK and NZ use comma, while Australia and North America use brackets. I see no reason why we have adopted the comma, and advantages to switching to brackets. For example, in the Australian section of the disambiguation page Little River, there is a clearer distinction between towns (Little River, Victoria) and waterways (Little River (Dubbo)). Is it worth making the change? dramatic (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

As it happens, Little River, New Zealand is about a town. Besides Silverstream, I can't think of any other NZ towns with river names, and these ones don't clash with rivers of the same name, so that doesn't seem like a very strong argument to me. But I don't see any good reason not to change, either. --Avenue (talk) 11:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

If no one raises any objection here then you can be bold. Just change the note in the convention if you go ahead. Kahuroa (talk)

I can think of a couple of problems with this. We obviously have our New Zealand naming conventions and to have rivers different from other geographic features would make things a little more confusing and less consistent. Secondly, if we were to change the river naming convention, we'd presumably have to move a lot of articles. I note that our naming conventions are out of step with most of the world not just with rivers. So if we have this discussion about rivers, why not discuss the broader naming conventions? Schwede66 18:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see a general discussion on the NZ naming conventions. The common practice for articles on other parts of the world is to use "name, country" for settlements, assuming "name" is ambiguous, and "name (feature)" for geographical features such as rivers and mountains. The guidelines are set out at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Disambiguation. We do have quite a lot of rivers and lakes with names which are not unique within New Zealand, so "name (river)" might have to become "name (Canterbury river)", which seems rather ugly to me.-gadfium 19:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like we need to talk about the conventions. Also, I don't think any of our conventions are linked from the project page are they, which might be handy. Kahuroa (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

If we're going to have a naming system that endures, it needs to be able to handle the increasing number of bi-lingual names, as per Mount Taranaki/Egmont. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a separate issue (and Taranaki is a trickier case than most). The issue surrounding rivers etc is what title to use when its name is not unique, and disambiguation is needed. Gadfium, can you give an example where "name (Canterbury river)" would be necessary? The closest cases I can think of are like Waiau River, Canterbury, which would become Waiau River (Canterbury) since River is already part of its name. --Avenue (talk) 01:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the problem I thought of isn't real, as all such features do have Lake or River/Stream/Creek as part of their name.-gadfium 02:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the (river) nomenclature is really only needed in Britain where the word 'river' is often omitted (The Tay, The Thames). All New Zealand rivers have River as part of their proper name, judging by the LINZ database. I chose Little River as my example precisely because it is a town. Adopting the widespread bracket convention for rivers will make this obvious without having to read the article. There is nothing wrong with our name, region format for populated places, and it follows the wider standard. Dual names are just about guaranteed not to be ambiguous, so should never need disambiguators, and are the best form to use (with the sole exception of Mount Taranaki which is an alternative name not a dual one and is not supposed to use a slash). I don't mind doing moves on rivers. dramatic (talk) 04:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

"All New Zealand rivers have River as part of their proper name, judging by the LINZ database." I can think of three exceptions off the top of my head: Lill Burn, Hamilton Burn and Water of Leith. These are all fairly notable watercourses (Hamilton Burn and Lill Burn also give their names to localities, and the Water of Leith is metropolitan Dunedin's most notable natural flowing water). Daveosaurus (talk) 04:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I ought to have said "All New Zealand waterways have some descriptor of the type of waterway as part of their official name" (I can also think of Meola Creek). Lill Burn (river) is tautological and therefore unnecessary. This is fortunate given that the people naming waterways in New Zealand did not seem to bother with the distinctions between types of waterway in British English - thus we have many creeks which are not tidal. Some official names of features are cross-language tautologies (e.g. Awanui River, Mount Maunganui), but that is both common and official usage so it is the name we should use. dramatic (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I have a recollection of a discussion about NZ river and place naming conventions about six years ago. The US went for brackets and we went for a comma to create disambiguated pages. My preference is to use a comma since that is what is generally done in the real world. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You may be thinking of Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 1#Need policy on places and naming (from Talk:New Zealand)-gadfium 05:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No, my discussion was with a US based editor. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't think when I've ever had to disambiguate a New Zealand river in conversation, Alan.dramatic (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

CAN I PLEASE HAVE SOMEONE TO DELETE A PAGE AND REDIRECT, CAN I HAVE TO DELETE THE PAGE "Northern League (New Zealand)" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_League_(New_Zealand)) and the to REDIRECT TO THE PAGE "Lotto Sport Italia NRFL Premier" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotto_Sport_Italia_NRFL_Premier) THANK U VERY MUCH —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhizzSheep (talk • contribs) 20:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Please don't shout! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• I've done the opposite. League sponsorships change regularly, and as such the standard, non-sponsored name is the best name for the page. What's more, since you simply copied and pasted everything across from the Northern League page, a lot of info would be lost. And I agree with DCiNZ - there's no need to SHOUT. For future refenece, you might like to look at Help:Redirect and Help:Moving a page. Grutness...wha? 21:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi all - I've slightly simplified the requested article list (I hope!) by turning the list of pages with many redlinks into a template — {{WPNZ redlinks}}. There were separate lists on WP:WPNZ and WP:WPNZ/Requested articles which kept on getting out of synch with each other - now the list on the two pages will stay identical. Grutness...wha? 03:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

If any admin has a moment, could they please take a look at Template talk:WikiProject New Zealand#Māori task force, and add the code there for the task force to the {{WikiProject New Zealand}} template. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 10:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Nvm, it's been done. – Liveste (talk • edits) 14:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi all. I have just expanded the article on the next Rugby World Cup winning captain. I think it is of Good quality and it could make Feature. I started a peer review here if anyone wishes to make comments. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 12:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi all - our article on the Nor'west arch could seriously use a photo...and judging by the idiot wind blowing hot through Dunedin today there's a chance that there's a good opportunity for one from one of our Cantabrian editors. Any chance? Grutness...wha? 22:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Done - thanks Schwede66. Grutness...wha? 21:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Everything here

Seems to be sourced to and at least all I checked give 404 messages. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It appears that MFAT have shifted this content to http://www.nzembassy.com/ without diplomaticly redirecting or intercepting the old URLs. Perhaps you could diplomatic advise the MFAT webmaster(s) of this 404 error. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 12:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

After a long time away I have found some free time to edit some articles again. I have discovered a couple of placenames with inappropriate macrons, i.e. Māoribank and Tōtara Park, that I think should be spelt Maoribank and Totara Park, because that is how they are spelt locally, here in Upper Hutt, and in the NZGB place name database. In my opinion, macrons should only appear in article names when they appear in the official (Māori) name of the place, if that is also the official (English) name of the place as well. Putting macrons over letters in English words in order to suggest they are not actually English words but Māori ones is getting a bit too PC for me. I get most concerned when the words originated from English speaking settlers or developers who chose not to put macrons in their English spelling of words that they had borrowed from the Māori and everyone has now accepted that their common usage is without macrons. But before I act too boldly, I would like to know what do others think?

Specific comments to Talk:Māoribank and Talk:Tōtara Park, general observations here. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 12:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No real need to discuss this here. Just be bold and move them to the non-macronised forms. Kahuroa (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The article Mucking In has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references ("Mucking In" Jim Mora) found a single published (gBooks) source, which is primary (written by Jim Mora) fails WP:N

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the nominator didn't use Google to look for references - it lists plenty of them. Grutness...wha? 04:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Either that or they believe books are the only reliable sources. There are plenty of sources out there if we include newspapers, the TVNZ website, and so forth. --Avenue (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Or they used a country specific google site (eg google.com) that doesn't search .nz Kahuroa (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I created the relevant section for 2011_New_Year_Honours. I've not linked and disambiguated the names, but that's something that can be incrementally. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who uses location infoboxes/maps might want to see Template talk:Location map#Inset Maps and give some feedback on a proposal to add inset map parameters Kahuroa (talk) 08:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thought I'd let everybody know of a very handy tool that I installed the other day, and it's turned out to be most useful. User:Anomie/linkclassifier is the documentation page for this javascript tool, which adds various classes to wikilink elements based on various characteristics. For those of you who keep an eye on things, you might find the following links that look different from a usual link of interest:

• pages tagged for deletion
• link to dab pages
• stub pages
• redirect pages

These are just some examples. Once you get used to the colour coding, you might be equally enthusiastic about this handy tool as I am. Schwede66 21:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

A proposal to move Māori to Māori people is being discussed on the Māori talk page. If this were a game of soccer, you could say it's the Kiwis playing the United Nations. It's one nil for the Kiwis at the moment. I suggest you go and spectate; maybe even put on a black jersey and join in. Schwede66 06:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Please be careful about advertising such discussions. Kwamikagami has threatened to block me, apparently because I disagreed with them.-gadfium 08:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

New article, created, at The Mystery of a Hansom Cab. Additional assistance in research would be appreciated, feel free to help out at the article's talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

In case anyone else is wondering about the relevance of this to WPNZ, I presume it's because the author grew up and studied law in Dunedin. --Avenue (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone think there is a primary topic for Onepoto? We have:

• The suburb in Porirua (Onepoto, New Zealand)
• A village near lake Waikaremoana (we don't even have an article!)
• The domain (and crater) in Auckland Onepoto (volcanic crater)
• ...and the nearby Onepoto Bridge

The settlement near Lake Waikaremoana is the only entry for the name in Wises New Zealand Guide. Google seems to have many more results for the Auckland domain than for Porirua, but this could be distortion from sports notices. It is arguable that a standalone village might have primacy over a suburb, especially since it is much older. dramatic (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

To me, the Porirua suburb seems the main one. Long-standing or not, the village is much smaller. But since we disagree, perhaps that indicates there isn't really a primary topic. The Auckland items would usually be followed by a noun showing which is meant (i.e. Onepoto Domain, Onepoto Bridge, Onepoto crater), so I don't think their titles should conflict with any of the others. --Avenue (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I think there's no primary topic, and the page should remain as a disambiguation. Te Onepoto is also a name for Taylor's Mistake, a beach in Banks Peninsula. Since it means "short beach", there are probably other features with this name too.-gadfium 00:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy enough to go with the disambiguation. But I think that Onepoto, New Zealand should become Onepoto, Wellington (meaning Wellington Region of course, although someone is bound to point out that Porirua is a separate city from Wellington City). This leaves us free to create Onepoto, Hawkes Bay. dramatic (talk) 08:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That sounds sensible enough to me. Schwede66 09:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Just letting people know that I received an email from Alan Liefting - probably our most active Christchurch editor - who has been away from WP since the earthquake. He's safe and well - presumably his lack of editing is simply because of higher priorities in the real world. Anyone know of other prominent Chch wikipedians who have been unusually quiet since Tuesday? Grutness...wha? 21:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Other than Alan, I don't actually know anybody personally from down here. Whilst I was right in the centre of town at Tuesday lunchtime (silly me being at work), and I also live in the CBD, I'm fine. But that should be evident from my contributions since. Have just written Canterbury Provincial Council Buildings, as that place is somewhat special to me. I was supposed to be getting married there, but the September earthquake cancelled our booking... Schwede66 21:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Good to know you're OK, though I had guessed that from your wiki activity. Grutness...wha? 02:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I am aiming to submit the projects flagship article for peer review next week and from there try for featured article status. I would like to encourage members or watchers of this project to make any suggestions or fixes regarding content, accuracy or any other issues before it is assessed as to its suitability for the front page. AIRcorn (talk) 06:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Peer review submitted here. AIRcorn (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Had they no idea what headaches they were going to cause us? The question at hand is how to disambiguate two rivers named Rainy River, both of which are in the Tasman Region. The usual approach would be to use the next smaller division, which is district, only Tasman is a Unitary Authority, so they are both in Tasman District. Does it make any sense to disambiguate via the rivers of which they are tributary, i.e. Rainy River (Motueka) and Rainy River (Pelorus)? dramatic (talk) 10:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Lol! That would seem the best solution. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Disambiguation using the river to which it is tributary is fine - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers#Multiple rivers with the same name. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

A common way of doing this (and one we've used with NZ in the past) would be to make them Rainy River (Western Tasman) and Rainy River (Eastern Tasman), or - if appropriate - Rainy River (Kahurangi National Park, Tasman) and Rainy River (Mount Richmond Forest Park, Tasman). ISTR there are two rivers with the same name in Gisborne Province, too (Wairoa, perhaps?) If you're going to use the names olf the rivers they flow into, you probably need to spell the names out a bit more (e.g., Rainy River (Motueka River tributary)), since the river isn't anywhere near the town of Motueka, which is what people will probably think of first. Grutness...wha? 11:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The wikt:Christchurch defintion for New Zealand is under dicussion, see wikt:Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification#Christchurch. Is Christchurch named after the town in England? 65.95.15.144 (talk) 07:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No. According to A.W. Reed's "Place names of New Zealand", the city's founder, John Robert Godley, named it after Christ's Church College, his Oxford University alma mater. According to Reed: In a letter to his father three years later, Godley wrote: "I hope that my old college is grateful to me for naming the future capital after it." Wise's Directory also claims that the city is named after the Oxford college. Grutness...wha? 11:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The college is just called "Christ Church", not "Christ's Church College" or "Christ Church College". It is also the cathedral for the Diocese of Oxford. You are correct about the naming. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right about the college name, of course. Long time since I've been in Oxford :) Grutness...wha? 08:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Aoraki / Mount Cook was recently moved to Aoraki/Mount Cook without discussion (the spaces around the slash being removed) and the article title now contravenes Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand). Because this potentially effects 90+ other articles, I have initiated a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(New_Zealand)#Does_usage_trump_convention? dramatic (talk) 01:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This AfD has been relisted twice due to lack of input. It would be great if a few more people could take a look. Thanks. Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Could someone with experience of NZ location maps show me how to include one in the {{Geobox}} template on Kaweka Range? As a linear feature it would be great if the map copuld show a line rather than a dot, but I appreciate that that may not be supported. dramatic (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Ihaveahugesandwidge 3:18, pm 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I've put the relevant template onto your user page. Schwede66 16:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

{{New Zealand English}} use of the flag is in question, see Template talk:American English

184.144.160.156 (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

We currently have Category:National parks of New Zealand. Do people think that it would be useful to create a subcategory for each National park which can include places within the park? dramatic (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Note that there is already a Category:Fiordland, but it's for the generic area rather than the NP itself. It may be worth using that specifically for the national park and taking it to CFD to have its name changed. Either that or (perhaps more useful) make a Category:Fiordland National Park subcategory for it and leave items like Manapouri in the main Fiordland category. Grutness...wha? 23:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think categories for each national park could be useful. I'd prefer having Category:Fiordland National Park as a subcategory of Category:Fiordland, rather than try to merge them. As well as the places within the region but not the park, articles like Fiordland Penguin would benefit from keeping them distinct. There will probably also be some duplication between Category:Whanganui River and Category:Whanganui National Park, but neither seems a suitable subcategory of the other. --Avenue (talk) 13:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I've created Category:Kahurangi National Park as a trial and added some (but not all) relevant articles to it. The next question is whether the articles on each National Park should remain in Category:National parks of New Zealand or move to their own park's category? dramatic (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The moment the sub-categories exist, the individual park articles belong into the relevant sub-category. Schwede66 00:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think that is not a simple either/or question. Personally I would prefer to keep the individual park articles in the broader Category:National parks of New Zealand, and label it with {{double category}}. The park articles could be in the specific category for their park too. However, maybe some care is needed here; see WP:EPON. --Avenue (talk) 00:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the general thing with such articles would probably be to double-categorise them: leave them in the main category, but also pipe them to the top of the individual park categories. Grutness...wha? 01:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

This page is getting unmanageably large, could someone with experience in such things please split it? Ideally before the build-up to the trials, which will presumably generate a buttload of coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

If anyone has an hour to spare, Ruapuke has been neglected for 5 years and currently reads like a travel brochure rather than an encyclopedia. dramatic (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm suffering from conflicting sources and numerous copies (of some unreliable source?) - does anyone have a reliable print source for which Baron Ashburton the NZ town and river were named after. It seems possible that the first to third barons were all involved with the Canterbury Association. dramatic (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I usually go with Reed's "Place names of New Zealand", which says Francis Baring, later 3rd Lord Ashburton. Grutness...wha? 01:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering if New Zealander and Kiwi (people) should be merged so stated a discussion here. It will probably need a broad consensus to go ahead. AIRcorn (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawn. I no longer think this should be done. AIRcorn (talk) 03:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

A request for a citation on the height of the Giant moa was placed, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_moa)

here is a link

http://www.nzbirds.com/birds/moagiant.html

I am very new here, and opened my accoung 5 minutes ago so i could see if i can help out.

StringFellow1974StringFellow1974 (talk) 01:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That may or may not be a good source. It's a private website owned by someone who says that she is "neither an ornithologist nor a scientist" - and the article doesn't cite references. If this fact came from a book, the book may be based on superseded research, or simply on another book. It is notable that early palentologists and museum directors distorted skeletons when reconstructing them in order to achieve "tallest" or "largest" records. Contrast the 19th century drawing on that page with its very upright stance against the more modern depiction on the postage stamp. Tyrannosaurus Rex went through a similar change of stance. Citation from a peer-reviewed journal would be best in articles of this nature. Unfortunately, for those of us outside universities, they tend to be behind paywalls. Finally, the best place to discuss this would have been on the talk page of the article in question. dramatic (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

North and South magazine would be a top source for New Zealand articles given the depth of research their writers do - but there doesn't appear to be any index of articles available online. Is there a cumulative index of the magazine that someone could digitise and make available for project members? dramatic (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is a good source. Another good one is New Zealand Geographic. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone help the new user with this? Mostly, it could use more reliable sources. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  09:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I suspect it's going to fail GNG as the majority of recreational theatre organisations in New Zealand would. dramatic (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Dramatic. I've had a look whether Titirangi / Lopdell House is a registered heritage building, as that could have been an angle to rescue this (i.e. the heritage building is the thing that's notable, and the theatre group is the current usage), but I couldn't find it on the NZHPT register. Schwede66 22:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

We have eliminated the backlog of NZ-related Unreferenced BLPs. Well done and thank you to everyone who helped out in any way! It would be advisable to watch the bot-updated list so that we can keep the number at zero. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

An anon and I appear to be having a disagreement about the 2007 New Zealand anti-terror raids. I feel that some note is important that this isn't an isolated thing but that there's >100 years of history here. The anon feels differently. I'm not going to edit war. Could someone else take a look? Stuartyeates (talk) 09:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you start a discussion on the article talk page. I think the issue is best discussed in more detail than can be expressed in edit summaries.-gadfium 09:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

There is currently some debate in the discussion section of his page about the reliability of David Rankin as a source on the subject of Hone formerly being called 'Hone Hatfield'.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/harawira-scolded-ngapuhi-elder-127449

User:luke96241 —Preceding undated comment added 11:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC).

While doing assessments, I have removed the WPNZ template from some articles on Tokelau and Niue. Although technically part of New Zealand, the articles are better served by their inclusion in WP:WikiProject Polynesia and the appropriate task-forces. In cases where the article is about the NZ/island relationship or there is a non-trivial reference to New Zealand, I would retain the WPNZ template. Does anyone disagree with this approach? dramatic (talk) 11:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds sensible to me. --Avenue (talk) 12:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering whether a Air travel disruption after the 2011 Puyehue eruption article for the 2011 Puyehue eruption should be created? This would be analogous to the Air travel disruption after the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption article.

Please discuss at: Talk:2011 Puyehue eruption

65.94.47.63 (talk) 10:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Waiheke Island was apparently named after "an event when Maori Explorer Kahumatamomoe landed on the island and urinated". This reads like vandalism. I find it a bit hard to believe that an island would be named after someone urinating. 83.84.195.88 (talk) 07:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Um, that wouldn't surprise me at all. Seems like a pretty convincing display of ownership. Kahuroa (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not that unusual really. You might be surprised at the origins of some Māori place names. For example, Te Urewera. – Liveste (talk • edits) 21:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

And as for Urenui... The one that always amuses me is Tutaekuri River. Grutness...wha? 01:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Uncultured as I am, Tutaekuri for me brings memories of the Outrageous Fortune telemovie.-gadfium 06:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

An approximate translation might well be "Dogshit River". Grutness...wha? 01:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

As it appears that the articles Grutness mentioned have no translation for their names, it occurs to me that we might want to add some explanatory information. Anyone have any reliable sources on hand? Reed's Dictionary of Māori place names, perhaps? Also, if anyone has a source confirming that the Urenui River is 27 km long, that'd be swell. – Liveste (talk • edits) 06:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I have a rather elderly Reed's, but it's got a couple of problems: (1) it's level of scholarship is about that of a tourist brochure, and (2) I can't actually find it at the moment. I do have a better book about Māori place names, but it only covers Otago and Southland. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Could reference the component parts here. Kahuroa (talk) 09:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I got a batch of flickr photos uploaded the other day showing Christchurch heritage buildings and gone through and categorised them, but there are three buildings left that I can't figure out where they are located. Could other editors with local Christchurch knowledge please go and have a look? Schwede66 04:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The building immediately to the right (seen from the street) of the Ross and Glendining building appears to be the same building as the building immediately to the left of the Haralds Building, if that is any help. I'll try looking up and down the streets in Google Maps later tonight if the others haven't been found by then. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Great. One down, two to go. Schwede66 05:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I've started 2011 Birthday Honours but won't get time to completely link it. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It needs the UK honours? We need to get rid of the honorifics. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The UK does theirs on a different date, I believe, but I only do the New Zealand ones. You're right about the honorifics, they're there because they were in the original press release, which I used a UNIX commandline on to create the first draft of the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes I thought it might have been something like that. I will run AWB over it to remove them. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I've now also done 1997 Birthday Honours (which is pretty rough) and 1998 New Year Honours. My intent is to work my way through the list at http://www.dpmc.govt.nz/honours/lists/index.asp Stuartyeates (talk) 09:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Done 2000 Birthday Honours. Lots of East Timor police and military gongs. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Done 1999 Birthday Honours. Some Nuie honours there too, which seem to be on the NZ lists. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

cat  2001.jb.html| sed 's^
^\n^g' | grep "\(dd\>\|p\>\|b\>\)" |perl -pe 's/([A-Z])([A-Z]*)/\1\L\2\E/g' | sed 's^$^||^' | sed 's/^/|-\n|| sed 's/,/ ||  ||/' | sed 's/\. /]] || /' | sed 's/ of / [[/'  | sed 's^||J.P.,^J.P.||^' | sed 's|<[^>]*>||g' 

Could someone who knows better then me please take a look at these edits, and especially the possibility that the ref actually refers to David Henderson (Christchurch, New Zealand)? I really have no idea where to go with this, and figured that this would be the best place for it. Thanks for any help. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 00:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

They appear to be two different people. See the time they shared a single article. I've reverted the anon's edits, as even if they are on the correct article they are unsourced and pov.-gadfium 01:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The Christchruch David was made bankrupt in 2010. http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/4403232/Property-developer-David-Henderson-placed-in-bankruptcy

The Auckland David was just made bankrupt this month. http://www.3news.co.nz/David-Henderson-declared-bankrupt/tabid/421/articleID/214556/Default.aspx

I suggest adding a note to the Auckland David article stating this, like was done to the Christchurch David article. Roue2 (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I overlooked that the anon had provided a source, and have updated the article accordingly.-gadfium 01:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. Good work. Roue2 (talk) 01:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

A good deal of information can be obtained by searching on http://www.insolvency.govt.nz/ including useful information like middle names and years of birth. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful.-gadfium 03:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I figured that people living and/or interested in NZ would know more then me, and it looks like I was right. Thanks guys! Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 10:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Shirt58 was WP:BOLD and used a non-existant template Template talk:Globalize/New Zealand on my recently created 2000 Birthday Honours page (see other section of this talk page). I've now created the template. I've used New Zealand/Aotearoa in the text of the template, since this is about inclusion. A new category New Zealand/Aotearoa-centric is thus automatically created. Feedback and complaints welcome, either to me or direct to Shirt58. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems like the articles should be renamed yyyy New Zealand Birthday Honours if they contain only NZ honours. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The set of articles was actually started by the Brits, but we seem to be working through them at different rates and in a different order. See 2000 New Year Honours for a good example. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a perfect example of an article that is far too large (240k!) and needs to be split. By country would be the obvious way to do that. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the right course of action is to split articles or move them as per DerbyCountyinNZ. Schwede66 14:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

If we're splitting, it should probably be by pseudo-country not by country (the honours system pre-dates the modern concept of country and so there are some wrinkles like the 1999 Birthday Honours for Niue being awarded with the New Zealand ones). Also as clicking around the pages in the honours template at the bottom of these pages will show we currently have problems populating these, which splitting the pages will make much, much worse. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I've started a conversation at Template talk:Honours Lists which seems like the right place to start. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject English has been nominated for deletion. As this project was proposed for maintaining national varieties of English on how articles are written/formatted/spelled, you may be interested. (essentially, maintaing WP:ENGVAR compliance on articles) 65.93.15.213 (talk) 04:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Kia Ora, New Zealand - is this for real or is somebody making this up? Schwede66 04:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it's a real place, or so says Google Maps --LJ Holden 04:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The Google Maps reference appears to have less than five houses. There's also http://www.linz.govt.nz/overseas-investment/decisions/decision-summaries/aug2007/d200720017 Stuartyeates (talk) 04:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Simply looks like a farming estate. I'm thinking PROD it. —Andrew_stalk 05:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

From memory it is a locality in North Otago. Probably no less notable than the hundreds of other small localities which have articles. I'll try to find anything interesting about it and make the article look a bit better if I have time in the next few days. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Correct, as listed at LINZ --ClubOranje^T 07:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added a little more, but it just scrapes by on notability. Grutness...wha? 01:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added it to this WikiProject and tagged it for notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Does anybody recognise this pretty church somewhere outside Christchurch? Schwede66 19:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Glenmark Church in Waipara. ...and I am an atheist! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

So am I, but that won't stop us to appreciate beautiful buildings. Thanks, Alan. Schwede66 23:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

There are 105 new NZ images on Commons, uploaded from Flickr, that need categorising. Please chip in if you have time and interest. Most of what has been done will be a subcategory of Luxury accommodations in New Zealand Schwede66 03:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be completed. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Correct, I finished categorising the other day, but I did forget to mention this here. There will be more work in this area coming up soon, as I've got about three jobs queued on Commons at Flickr batch upload. Schwede66 01:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

We should try and convince someone at the National Library to become an editor at WikiMedia Commons and upload images directly. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hm, that would be good, but ... I'm not entirely sure whether their crappy website (and it is crappy, believe you me) is set up the way it is so that it is extremely hard to download their images in high resolution as a clean jpg file. I go through multiple steps before an image is ready for upload. Would other editors be interested in me documenting those steps? But back to your question, Alan – if this is deliberate, then they wouldn't want us to grab their images, so suggesting to them uploading their photos to Commons themselves might be a bit of a steep ask. Schwede66 04:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I travel far and wide through the pages of Wikipedia - from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe - but I also spend time on the pages relating to New Zealand. During my editing and reading of Wikipedia I have gained the impression that the New Zealand articles and categories are extremely well written and maintained. More often than not they have a page layout that follows the Manual of Style and one that is emerging as a preferred standard on many other well maintained pages - it is also one that I like.

Does New Zealand have a greater number of competent Wikipedians per capita than other countries? If so, is it the often stated egalitarian nature of New Zealanders that makes us contribute to Wikipedia? There is a huge amount of data that can be sifted to see how New Zealand compares to other countries in terms of editing quality. This would be an interesting project that could be followed up.

So the New Zealand Wikipedians need a collective pat on the back for good work done to date. Good on ya, mates!-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

If somebody has the capability of interrogating a database, I'd be grateful for a helping hand. I've got a list article on Christchurch heritage structures almost ready to go, but had to reformat the way the referencing works. The draft article was created in somebody's userspace in the German Wikipedia. When the lot got copied across to the English Wikipedia, I encountered the problem of maxing out on the number of templates. I'm in the process of changing how the article is referenced and there are two steps still required:

• shift the refs from the first column to the second column (after the text); that's relatively easy to do and I'd be happy to do it by hand (note that I've done this already for the first four entries)
• replace the text "addtitle" in the reference by the name that the item has on the NZHPT database - this is the task where some clever programming could facilitate a lookup.

Can anybody tackle the (second) task? Schwede66 22:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Done, in a spreadsheet with the VLOOKUP function and the results from a register search. XLerate (talk) 08:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Awesome - thanks. I'm assuming that you put the results from a register search into a spreadsheet, too. I couldn't figure a way how to get search results into a spreadsheet that showed the URLs (containing the ID); all I managed is the two columns (property name and address). Would you mind explaining to me how you went about this? Schwede66 18:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

That's right, results from the register search needed to be in a spreadsheet for VLOOKUP. I used "View source" of the webpage, save webpage as text file is another way. Then I used find & replace in a word processor to work the file into shape to paste into a spreadsheet. XLerate (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Article has now been published. Thanks again for your help. Schwede66 09:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I like the montage, very nice. XLerate (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi all - I've made a start on an article on Lane's Emulsion, but I'm having trouble finding info and - frankly - it looks almost proddable the way it stands. If anyone can add any information to this before someone decides to cart it off to AfD, please do so! Thanks. Grutness...wha? 11:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Papers past has 15,000 hits for it. The all blacks have less than 60,000 hits. Troll through there for stuff to add to the article? Stuartyeates (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The Papers Past hits are likely to mostly be advertisements for the medicine rather than news reports. However if anyone's travelling through Oamaru in the near future they could always grab a photograph of the Lanes Emulsion premises in Harbour Street in the historic area which should add a bit of interest to the article. Daveosaurus (talk) 03:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

We must always assume these articles will be read by people outside NZ, people who don't speak with a Kiwi accent. Whenever we add pronunciation, especially for Maori words or place names, we should use international standard pronunciation.

What prompted me to write this is the entertaining article on Ngawi, a small Wairarapa town (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ngawi,_New_Zealand). It says to pronounce Ngawi as "Nar wee". That's terrible; only people who are "R-droppers" can pronounce it using that guide. Anyone who pronounces their Rs would get the sound hideously wrong. If someone knows IPA, it would be really good to replace this bad pronunciation guide with a proper one. Haryadoon (talk) 07:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

To do this, go to Māori_language#Phonology and look at the tables; translate the letters in the name into the funny characters adjacent to them (or to themselves if the funny character is missing). Stuartyeates (talk) 08:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated Francis Petre for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Brad (talk) 08:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thought I'd post a quick note that Grutness is having a dreadful time. I've just seen that he has effectively resigned from Wikipedia. I'm off to bed now, so won't have time to look into it. If you want to see for yourself what is going on, start on my talk page. Schwede66 09:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I have created a new sub-page for sharing New Zealand sources for when we're struggling to find sources for articles.

Feel free to add new sources or notes to the current ones. (talk)

Great little resource - thanks! Schwede66 08:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, a great resource. I had started a similar project for mainly dead tree format publications but haven't got very far. See User:Alan Liefting/Articles/Bibliography of New Zealand. Once completed I want to put it in article namespace. Shall I tack it on to WP:NZ for all of us to work on? I decided to start the page since I have seen them created for some other countries. It is a good idea - an encyclopaedia should make recommendations as to where to find further information. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure how much I'd personally use a list of print works. Others might. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Readers can click on the ISBN link and see if it is in their local library. The idea is that we, as WP editors, select the best books from the huge pile of publications out there. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I just found this article about a kiwi. I've improved it substantially, but I'd like an opinion about where it stands with respect to WP:BIO1E. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't know whether winning MissNZ does the trick, to be honest. I suspect that it's not enough to become notable, but I haven't researched what the precedents are. Schwede66 08:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Given that the template for the national title holders of Miss Universe has numerous links it seems that there may be a degree of notability. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject New Zealand for an upcoming edition of The Signpost. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, you can find the interview questions here. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. If you have any questions, you can leave a note on my talk page. Have a great day. – SMasters (talk) 01:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

A big "thank you" to all those who participated. I hope WPNZ members enjoy reading the article. --SMasters (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I was born .. as all (older) kiwi's were. Sometime Last Century. But.. I was also - born 7 raised.. within 20miles of (what I was told was):

A CASTLE.

Being as it was.. A Stout 3story, Solidly built Red Brick Collection of Buildings.. All (Ok - not enclosed in an outer wall as such- but individully all) All buildings in & around the main structure.. Were HIGH WALLED Perapetted (with Flat Roof - Raised wall embattlement's).

Basically -- an exact replca of what a CASTLE .. should look like.. When built in a harsh INLAND environment -- on flat land (with no mote).

Thus: To "learn" today - that NZ is considered to "have' only two CASDTLE's .. One of which was Cargill's (now derilct) With the other being "Larnach" ? Mistifies me somewhat.. As I do "know" the one that I grew up around. (and that could be EASILY SEEN - before the trees grew too large) And: i & through .. were MANY public tours & afternoon tea sessions served.. Before the bulding's Embattlements were classified as being too hazardous and unsafe.. BUT- which is "still" used as the Noble Mans House of residence (Nobleman - I was told.. is they whom being- is the LANDHOLD's RUNHOLDER)

Thus: Why is there no mention. of the Earnscleugh Station CASTLE. A huge 3story multi roomed mansion.. With Fortified Embattlementation's ON EVERY OLD BUILDING (& on the horse stables as well).

? Or is that CASTLE -- not a Castle.. (simply because it isn't in Dunedin). QUIX4U (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

p.s. The SHENNAN Brothers.. were.? I do also believe- the 1st PERMANENT settlers. In & Around Alexandra.

One of the Shenna Brothers .. built a HUGE mansion at Galloway. A twin Shyst Rock (structured) building with 2 long passage ways And at the (EAST) end .. a long interconnecting passageway Accessing across the ends - between & thus connecting the two outer parralel sections Much the same as a horizontal |___| "building_floorplan layout" Otherwise known as Galloway Station (Andrew Preston's Runhold, of ~30,000 acres~)

The Other Shennan Brother. Built the HUGE CASTLE On open desolate treeless sandy FLATS (bang smack) in the middle of Earnscleugh. Earnscleugh Station. WITH ALL BUILDINGS HAVING: 1/- an open topped access to the roof as if it were a "floor", & 2/- Highwalled Fortified Perapet's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlements) & 3/- An UPPER ledge across these .. upon which to "rest" small arms.. Or simply to provide a more robust upper continuous plinth, Over the top of the CASTLE'ATED (fortified) Parapet — Preceding unsigned comment added by QUIX4U (talk • contribs) QUIX4U (talk) 20:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Reference.? VISUAL EVIDENCE - THAT ANYONE CAN VIEW - EITHER FROM MANY POINTS From Public Access roads - (outside the propety boundary). Or from the comfort of your own armchair. Courtesy of a cellphone video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLD-QaA-rlI Uploaded by QUIX4U on Feb 12, 2010

Dual video showing 1stly - The Frasier Domain Single Hydo-Electric Power Generation Station plus 2ndly - The (original) Homestead of the Shannon Brother whom formed & ran - the Earnscleugh Sheep & Cattle RUNHOLD - with it's Castle (NZ).

Category: Howto & Style

Tags: Frasier Domain Hydro Electric Power Generation Station Earnscleugh's Sheep Runhold Castle

License: Standard YouTube License QUIX4U (talk) 20:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I've had a look at Google, and I can't see that it's known as Earnscleugh Castle. There's no mention of 'castle' on the Earnscleugh Station website. And although the place is a Category I building registered with the NZHPT, their entry is rather sparse. The guy who introduced the rabbits has a (stub) page on WP, though, as he was an MP. So by what I can see, two seems to be the right count for NZ castles. Schwede66 01:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been looking to cover the current media storm in relation to the court ruling about this case. I hesitate to add this to 2007 New Zealand anti-terror raids because that's already long enough and much of this is more general. Ideas where I should put it? Stuartyeates (talk) 06:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest New Zealand Evidence Act, or Search and Surveillance Bill, but neither of these have existing articles, so extra work would be necessary to create an initial article before covering the media storm. Since every act of parliament, as far as I know, is considered notable, perhaps the easiest would be to create an article New Zealand Police search controversy (or similar) and rename it once the title of the emergency legislation becomes known. Links can be added at the anti-terror raids article and at New Zealand Police-gadfium 07:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The article is at Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill.-gadfium 04:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

ANd now Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Act 2011 --IdiotSavant (talk) 23:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been trying to get the macro for Māori words to accept the optional link option, which provides a link to the Māori wikipedia, as the French equivalent does. Is anyone good with templates? Stuartyeates (talk) 07:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been doing some work on artists' pages and have created Category:People whose works are held in Museum of New Zealand, but I'm not sure of the name. Until I'm confident I'll not add too many people. Anyone have a better suggestion? Stuartyeates (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe look at Category:People associated with the British Museum. Schwede66 19:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It's now Category:People associated with the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The list of New Articles on New Zealand subjects does not appear to have been updated for quite some time. Is it still "active"? – Matthew25187 (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Who can help with a map for a new article? City Mall, Christchurch is probably on the home page on Saturday morning, so before then would be great! What I'd like to show are:

• the extent of the mall
• a few road names that are mentioned in the article
• the location of the former and current registered heritage buildings

Schwede66 03:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Auckland has been inactive for a while, and I noticed that another user suggested merging information from that project to this one, so I added a {{mergefrom}} tag to this article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

<sarcasm>nah, we're not really interested in anything north of the bombays</sarcasm> Stuartyeates (talk) 09:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I support the merger. In practice, this may not require more than removing the Auckland wikiproject tag from all talk pages and checking that there is a New Zealand wikiproject tag there. This is a suitable task for a bot.-gadfium 20:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, a merge would be useful. Schwede66 20:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I've begun a bit of a project at User:Stuartyeates/Ngā Ūpoko Tukutuku that might result in the creation of ~1300 redirects from Māori to English pages and would appreciate feedback. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I've replied at User talk:Stuartyeates/Ngā Ūpoko Tukutuku.-gadfium 20:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I've completely rebuilt my example, based on reflection and gadfium's feedback. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons has media related to John Banks (New Zealand politician).

Need a decent photo of John Banks (New Zealand politician). The current one is not suitable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Hope this helps. Schwede66 01:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that you added one over at Commons. I would like to see a formal, official photo of him in the articles. I don't care one single bit for his political ideology but WP should do his article a little justice. Is there any fair use photos of him I wonder? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair-use is generally invalid for living people, for an official photo you could try WP:PERMISSION (like File:Helen Clark 2.jpg). XLerate (talk) 01:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

All I did was look on flickr whether there are photos of him with a licence compatible with Commons, and there was one that I uploaded. If that's not good enough, you could search on flickr and see whether there are unfree photos. If you find any that you think are suitable, we can then ask the photographers whether they are happy to change the licence. I have a standard request for that and if you leave the photo URLs here, I'm happy to put the queries to the photographers. Schwede66 01:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/beauty/6041397/Kiwi-women-are-slobs-Wikipedia appears to be talking about Culture of New Zealand. User:SarahStierch beat me to fixing it. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

DigitalNZ is a National Library of New Zealand project that aggregates New Zealand content from across the internet and redistributes it through APIs and so forth. At an event this week, I suggested that they harvest WikiProject New Zealand content based on our assessment of article quality. They seemed to think it was a good idea (and the very least they humuored me). This is a bunch of folks I know though my day job who seem savvy about Content licensing and the technical aspects of web harvesting, but not much about wikipedia internal processes, so I'm offering to be a contact person. If/when DigitalNZ arrive here, they need to read the assessment page and the content licensing page. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Probably a good idea to have a read of Wikipedia:Database download also. XLerate (talk) 09:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

If anybody is interesting on doing some work on new Member of Parliament bios, please see this collaboration. We are working towards getting some DYK credit, with the nomination to be made on Friday. Schwede66 18:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

See the PDF at http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/new-national-led-administration-announced for the announcement on new/changed portfolios, ministers etc Lanma726 (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Bear in mind that that document contains a spelling mistake, it's Whānau Ora not Whanau Ora. I find it rather disappointing when official documents get this wrong. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I would encourage people to add Kerry Bolton to their watch lists. The article is about a colourful New Zealand individual with a documented track record of litigation threats and complaints. I have a minor WP:COI so I probably shouldn't work on the article myself. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd second that request. The subject himself has been very involved in the article, complicating matters considerably.   Will Beback  talk  05:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I see you guys do a good job with outreach, and I think it makes sense to make use of the stronger wikiprojects when you're trying to help people get started. At the military history project ("Milhist"), we're pretty good at collaborating and helping people get articles through the review processes. Feel free to add the {{WPMILHIST}} tag near the top of the talk page of any article that has a substantial section relevant to military history, or post a message at our talk page if you have questions or would like assistance. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 14:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Feilding is one of New Zealand's most beautiful towns supported by a thriving retail and agricultural based economy. It also has a rich cultural heritage still able to be seen in the architecture in the CBD. There are many special aspects of Feilding, so we're inviting people who live in or who are connnected to Feilding to help tell its story, and make it New Zealand's first Wikipedia town in the style of Monmouthpedia. All members of the community (current and those living further afield) are welcomed to participate. [here] to find out more and contact Katherine at Destination Manawatu to register your interest and help get this project started. T: +64 6 350 1811 E: office@manawatunz.co.nz

--ManawatuNZ (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually there are a number of independent wikis for places in New Zealand already. The one I am most familiar with is Waihekepedia. It had a reasonably promising start, and has over 600 pages of content, but has largely languished for the last year or more. An Auckland Wiki ran for a few years but died some time ago. I don't know anything about them, but there's a wiki devoted to music in Hamilton which looks very active, and a Wairarapa wiki which appears to be less so.-gadfium 03:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course, there's nothing wrong with getting better coverage of Manawatu towns and topics (I recently created both Te Manawa and New Zealand Rugby Museum). There are some fabulous sources such as (which I maintain), and of course, a researcher with access to the local archives (as User:ManawatuNZ presumably has) will have access to many others. If User:ManawatuNZ is really looking for a way to move forward, I'd suggest a monthly page to work on, rotating between places, instutitions and people. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the full title for Monmouthpedia is Wikipedia:GLAM/MonmouthpediA making a solid understanding of Wikipedia:GLAM a great place to start. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Stuarteates. This is really useful to know. I hadn't come across the online article you referenced before. I have experience with the archives at Palmerston North City Library and Feilding & District Archives. I guess that is a huge part of Wikipedia, being able to reference article items to existing online articles. I can see that this will have it's challenges. Interesting to know that you created Te Manawa and New Zealand Rugby Museum articles, as these have undergone significant change. I look forward to finding out more about Wikipedia:Glam. Thank you so much. --203.114.136.216 (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I have been tidying up the subcats of Category:Regions of New Zealand. For each region I have created subcats by topic, such as education, environment, politics, transport, similar to the the structure of Category:New Zealand. It was well overdue since the parent categories had collected a disparate series of articles making navigation a little more difficult. The Category:Regions of New Zealand subcats are now cleaned up but there is a huge number of articles lurking around that can be used to populate the categories that I have created. One part of my re-categorisation is contentious. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_Zealand/politics#New_Zealand_electorate_categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not just one part of your re-categorisation plan that is contentious, see #Auckland categories below. FanN | talk 03:06, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I can see a rationale for categorising education & schools by regions - although education in New Zealand is not regionalised, schools by their very nature typically service just a small locality. On categories of people, and of politics I've already stated my position. Category:Geography of the Auckland Region includes non-geographical articles such as Alexandra Park, along with a schizophrenic Port Waikato that doesn't know whether it belongs in Auckland or in Waikato; whilst the category in general is a mix of physical geography and Category:Suburbs of Auckland - which is in itself a sub-category of Category:Geography of Auckland. Layering yet more categories over Auckland/Auckland Region is no solution to the Byzantine mess that is presently used.

Note: As Auckland presents the worst case I haven't looked too much into other regions - I think there's already enough to be getting on with with the Auckland/Auckland Region articles.FanN | talk 07:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion is that in the medium to long term we move all regional categories to ones based on a legal (current or historical) boundaries and make these clear in the title of the category. Many of the New Zealand wars articles, for example, should be categorised by province; Healthcare by the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000 boundaries; etc. Yes, this is a reasonbale amoutn of work. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_17#Category:Factories_in_New_Zealand. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there still a place for Category:Auckland Region and Category:Auckland now that there is one unitary council? Previously the boundary of the Auckland City Council could have been used for the latter category but now it seems rather arbitary and perhaps the two should be merged? I had originally started a discussion here on just the Category:Politics of the Auckland Region, but now I think its a wider issue. Thoughts? Mattlore (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

A wider issue in what respect? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

In that its not just "Politics of", its a whole family tree of categories. Mattlore (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Which family tree of categories? In what way? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:18, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't see the point of stuffing everything into a regional category. It's not like New Zealand has a strong identification of - or is significantly, politically, culturally or socially bounded by - its regions; unlike States of Australia or Provinces of Canada. I'm not sure what border between Auckland and Waikato Regions you're using either - it appears to be the googlemaps one which is at odds with the Waikato Region map, which in turn disagrees with maps on the Auckland Council website. I've recently browsed Category:People from the Auckland Region looking for rationales for including them there. Arthur Allan Thomas was one I thought significant enough to be in the wider Category:People from New Zealand, and as his home town of Pukekawa by some definitions is in Waikato Region - both Thomas and Pukekawa, and by extension Harvey and Jeannette Crewe are all miscategorised. Since our maps of territorial authorities (all still show Franklin) and regions are out of date and the region articles for Waikato and Auckland need redefining post-Supercity amalgamation categorising anything is premature. Another case is Martin van Beynen, categorised by his birth region although he works and is identified with Christchurch. Really, I cannot see any justification for bunging people into a regional category, unless they are actually associated with regional or local government, or are particularly known for their promotion of their region.FanN | talk 03:44, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

What do you propose to do Fanx? Delete both Category:Auckland Region and Category:Auckland? I was just pointing out that the status quo doesn't seem to be particular satisfactory and I think merging the two would at least be a small improvement seeing as the boundaries between them are now either non-existant or arbitary. Quite willing to discuss other options.

Alan, I meant that its not just Politics of Auckland and Politics of Auckland Region, its everything in Auckland and everything in Auckland Region. Mattlore (talk) 05:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

This should probably be in the above discussion but this is where the talk is now.

I don't propose deleting either, a merge and redirect one to the other should fix it - which should be the main category and which should be the redirect needs deciding - and I am not yet sure which I'd support atm. On the point of subcategories I do have a strong position though - politics of Auckland [Region] should be limited to local body political issues and elections, people similarly should be limited to people that are strongly connected to Auckland, such as mayors and persons known for their attachment to Auckland. An accident of birth should not qualify, nor should (for instance) having been an MP for an Auckland electorate, given that MPs are supposedly in the service of the whole country and since 1865 are required to do their representation out of Auckland in Wellington. I have other issues with this whole concept of categorisation by region which I'll put elsewhere. FanN | talk 06:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Similar position to me from the sounds of it then, they should be merged but I'm not too fussed which way. Categories like "people from" are used around wikipedia (Category:People by country and city) so that is a wider discussion than just our project. Region of course might not be appropriate in NZ, but like you said thats a conversation for above. Mattlore (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm coming late to this, but the status quo seems sensible to me, broadly speaking. Perhaps Category:Auckland should renamed to make it clearer that its scope is the Auckland urban area, not the broader region. I agree that the two politics categories are probably no longer worth distinguishing, and maybe also sport, but I'm not sure I would want to merge much further than that. Buildings, suburbs, history, transport, and others seem worth keeping distinct. --Avenue (talk) 13:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Could some of you please watchlist Peter Beck (priest)? He's currently standing in a Christchurch City Council by-election and yesterday, an editor appeared who is closely related to the subject (see the article's talk page). I have reinstated some removed content, but the contributor has come back as an anon and removed it again. I'm going to be without internet access for a few days, so I'd appreciate others keeping a watchful eye on the article. Schwede66 18:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Not strictly a NZ topic, but WPFiji seems to be pretty moribund. I notice there's not yet an article on the 2012 Fiji floods - probably worth having one. Any takers? Grutness...wha? 05:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Grats to User:Schwede66 to converting my stub of Joseph Clarkson Maddison into something suitable for the front page. A quick note about naming of architects: the DNZB goes by the fullest name it can find for people rather than the name they practised / lived / were famous under. So the list of architects' names on Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Requested articles (which uses the names they practised under) should probably have a lot more blue links once sane redirects are in place. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Somebody else started expanding it. I then picked it up, as Maddison was on my 'to do' list as a notable Christchurch person (I've done a lot of work on historic buildings in Christchurch). With regards to the architect list on WPNZ, I've looked through the list up to (and including) the letter 'K' and managed to find a few red links that should be blue. If somebody else wants to carry on with L and onwards, please feel free. Schwede66 05:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Many of our maps have a colouration that is a little garish. Pink, green and orange are used. See . I would like to see a change to the colour scheme - at the very least for orange. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I am a New Zealand poet. I have performed for and with my peers on this list, and have had my poetry published and exhibited in New Zealand and online. Could you please provide information so that I may also be referenced on this list, with subsequent Wikipedia pages. My poetry has been performed at Raw Fish Salad, Poetry Live, Spectrum and published in Side Stream, Blackmail Press and Live Lines, and excerpt exhibited at Te Karenga Gallery, 'Ethosphere' Exhibition, Like Minds Like Mine. My poetry is my life and lives on my website http://www.poetryoutwest.wordpress.com.

kind regards

Jodine Derena Butler — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.24.249 (talk) 06:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for self-promotion. If there are independent sources which justify a claim to sufficient notability for inclusion someone will find it. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I uploaded the image at right today and added it to the Tane Mahuta article, with me as author and released PD. It was subsequently listed at Possibly unfree files, where the reason for listing is given as "commons:COM:FOP#New Zealand suggests that laws are similar to the United Kingdom, where photos of signs like this aren't allowed". Before I comment there, I am asking here if anyone has experienced such an event where a user says a commons guideline suggests something, and on that basis removes an image. And how did you deal with it? I took quite a few photographs in the Hokianga a week ago which would be useful for wiki articles, but I won't consider uploading them if the suggestion is valid. Moriori (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd ask this at WP:MCQ, I understand signs can be used if either de minimus applies (sign is small in background etc) or doesn't contain anything copyrightable (like a text only sign - which may apply here). I think the listing is basically saying they don't know if it's copyright or not, and would like confirmation it's ok to keep. Your own photos of nature, plants, rivers etc won't have a copyright issue. XLerate (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Over the last couple of months this article has been transformed into an attack article. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

what a mess. I've reverted the whole thing to a version in Oct last year and updated about 2 things that were out of date in that version. - SimonLyall (talk) 03:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read the section on conflict of interest. Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged—but not actually required—to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of the related article they are editing, particularly if those edits may be contested. Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Wikipedia. Offender9000 (talk) 05:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I am thinking of deleting the section on Structure and condensing it into a couple of sentences. The average reader is unlikely to be interested in the structure of the Department and there is little that can be added to each of the sub-headings that allow editing... Comments welcome - except from anyone who works at Corrections.Offender9000 (talk) 04:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

William Liley is somewhat of a train crash due to a years-old conflict between family and activists. I've done some rescue and fixed some links. I've also found a biography. Is that a license we can use? I'd like to replace the entire body of the article... Stuartyeates (talk) 07:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

That licence is both Non-Commercial and No-Derivatives, so we cannot use it. NC means that others cannot reuse the content for commercial gain, eg, selling a printed or value-added work. ND means that no one could edit the content. Neither is acceptable to us. It can be used as a source though.-gadfium 07:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was confused by their use of the image from one version of the CC lisence and the URL from another. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)