Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
"Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand" redirects here. For the WikiProject itself, see Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand.
Shortcut
New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board
This page is a notice board for things that are particularly relevant to New Zealand Wikipedians.

You are encouraged to add your name to the list of New Zealand Wikipedians.

Click here to start a new discussion
New Zealand time and date: 05:59 20 April 2024 NZDT (refresh)
Universal time and date: 16:59 19 April 2024 UTC (refresh)
Notice: Since November 2014 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand has redirected to this page. Archives for the page can be found below.
Wikinews has media related to: New Zealand

Archives

Article alerts

Today's featured articles

Did you know

Articles for deletion

Proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Good article nominees

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

(1 more...)

National Parks collaboration

Ngā mihi o te tau hou ki a koutou! A few times in the past we've talked about a potential collaborative project to raise the quality of our national park articles, but nothing has come to fruition on this yet. I'm trying to see whether there would be any interest in giving this another shot, as I'd love to see all 13 of the articles at GA status by the end of the year. If there's enough people keen, I can start up a subpage and we can take it from there (perhaps tying in with other things going on, such as the meetup in Golden Bay / Mōhua?). Turnagra (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Turnagra: Thanks for raising this. I am a definitely a starter. Perhaps we could begin with Abel Tasman National Park and Kahurangi National Park, since these two are already on the list of potential articles for improvement at the Wikipedia:Meetup/Mohua / Golden Bay, and both need major improvements. A sub-page to plan and track progress and issues would be great.Marshelec (talk) 21:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in! Schwede66 22:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marshelec @Schwede66 - thanks, great to hear! I've started Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/National parks with an early outline, keen to get your thoughts on anything else that could be added or other things we need to consider for the project to be successful. Turnagra (talk) 01:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be okay to include some of the Regional parks of New Zealand as well? Most are tiny little things that would be a struggle to expand to C-class, let alone GA, but there are some which are very significant in size/history (e.g. Belmont Regional Park, Hunua Ranges, Waimakariri River Regional Park and Waitākere Ranges). --Prosperosity (talk) 05:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There were a lot of things I considered including - national reserves are another one, as well as Great Walks and so on - but I figured it would be better to keep it clearly defined and prevent scope creep for now. If it goes well, then we could expand it to some of those after the National Park articles are done if that works? Turnagra (talk) 05:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good! I might work a bit on the regional parks article, so that it's more immediately obvious which parks are gigantic nationally relevant reserves. --Prosperosity (talk) 05:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having cleaned up
Waitākere Ranges Regional Park, Akatarawa Forest and Waimakariri River Regional Park. Of these, Waitākere Ranges shouldn't be far off GA, Hunua Ranges and Waimakariri River Regional Park have good sources (Auckland's South Eastern Bulwark and Waimakariri: an Illustrated History), and I'm not sure if Akatarawa Forest has enough published about it to get it to GA. --Prosperosity (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warp_(magazine)

There are three likely incorrect entries in this article regarding Warp, a New Zealand science fiction club fanzine published from 1977 to the late 1990s.

I have a collection of Warps from issue 1 through to issue 101 - and was the editor of a single issue (41) in 1984.

The sentence "The magazine was published by Transworld." offers no citation for verification. Transworld is not cited in any issue from 1 to 101. I recommend that it be removed.

The statement "The Warped Tour, established in 1994, is named after the magazine." offers no citation for verification and is likely to be incorrect. I recommend that it be removed.

The entire section titled "Kelly Anna" refers to "Wrap magazine" and has likely been entered into this article in error. I recommend that it be removed. (The cover shown features an illustration by Dan McCarthy, not Kelly Anna.) 27.252.217.196 (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of going ahead and removing the incorrect info. Thank you for letting people know. The first two errors were introduced into the article several years ago based on an apparently irrelevant source (a book about a pop group which didn't even form until after Warp ceased publication) and the third much more recently but definitely also in error. Daveosaurus (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Highlanders (rugby union)

Highlanders (rugby union) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dom Harvey Draft

Can someone please help with the following draft.

Draft:Dom Harvey. The current link to Dom Harvey goes to The Edge radio station and I am unsure on how to adjust or fix this (with moving it or when it may get approved). Of course this is a draft but I was happy to go ahead and move this to the main space now. This was a requested article so I decided to go ahead and give it a go. Thank you very much! ArleneHerman (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

@
technical requests. —Panamitsu (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you for the swift reply. Awesome! I thought this may be the case. Much appreciated! ArleneHerman (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is all resolved :) Thank you! ArleneHerman (talk) 05:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've dealt with the draft and made the redirect go away. Schwede66 05:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plug-in electric vehicles in New Zealand

WP:BROCHURE. Two good sources of current data are evdb.nz and the Ministry of Transport fleet statistics. — Jon (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Reference-desk-style question

Just curious: if you go to a shop and buy five $1.99 items, and you pay in cash, are you charged $9.90 or $10.00? All rounding is easy here in Australia, since we still have a 5¢ coin and prices are always in whole cents, but since $9.95 is exactly halfway between $9.90 and $10, I don't have any idea how this would round in NZ$. Nyttend (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Tecnically it is up to the discrestion of the retailer [1]. I understand most places round up if it end in 5c. In NZ we call our rounding
Swedish rounding. That name was 'coined' when we got rid of the 1c and 2c coins. ShakyIsles (talk
)

Currency copyright rules on Commons is now out of date

The Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 2021 has changed the Reserve Bank's guidelines around using images of New Zealand currency. The New Zealand copyright rules on Wikimedia Commons haven't been changed since before 2021, and probably need updating. Do we have any numismaticists or copyright experts around who could help figure out whether we can in fact upload images of NZ coins and banknotes for the various articles New Zealand dollar, Coins of the New Zealand dollar, Banknotes of the New Zealand dollar? — Jon (talk) 01:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it seems there's no article for Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 2021 — Jon (talk) 01:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neither of the two you listed but that guidelines page you linked says that reproductions are acceptable as Reproducing complete, scaled, one-sided images of banknotes and coins in books, brochures or on screen. This would be typically for educational, informational or illustrative purposes which I believe to be the case on Wiki. —Panamitsu (talk) 01:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but it also says (about banknotes): we hold the copyright for the design of the banknotes, while copyright in the individual images used on the notes may be held by others. That's a bit of a worry, isn't it? And about the series 7 banknotes, they say: These images cannot be used for commercial uses. That's a non-starter. Schwede66 03:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes I completely missed that part. For the series 7 banknotes, my interpretation is that it is specifically talking about the images that they took and listed on Facebook. To me it looks like series 7 banknotes are allowed to be used as long as they are not those Facebook ones. —Panamitsu (talk) 03:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of that section is that it may be acceptable from the commercial use point of view (I'd count Wikipedia as educational, informational or illustrative...) but that derivative works are expressly prohibited. Whether that's compatible with Wikipedia's licensing is above my pay grade. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas and proposals for the WANZ 2024/25 budget

Do you have an idea for a substantial project that would create or improve content on a Wikimedia platform (preferably with a New Zealand focus) ? By end March this year, the management committee of Wikimedia Aotearoa NZ needs to make its annual funding application to the Wikimedia Foundation for the period July 2024-June 2025. If you have an idea or proposal, we would love to hear from you, so that we can make some allowance in our funding application to WMF. For some background about what we might be able to fund through grants, see: Providing grants to support programmes and activities. If you would like to make a suggestion please contact Dianne in the first instance, at info[at]wikimedia.nz. We have a planning meeting on 9 February, so it would be great to hear by then, but suggestions can be received up until late March. Marshelec (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Co-governance article

I have started work on the

Draft:Co-governance article. Have made progress with the introduction, etymology and implementation section but it needs a good amount of work and copy-editing. I also plan to add a views and public opinion section/s. Feel free to help out. I think this article will be useful given that it was a hot potato topic in the 2023 New Zealand general election. Andykatib (talk) 01:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Good luck with that. IMO it is a bit early to create something meaningful. Therefore, it will result in the 'hot potato' you refer to. Many of your sources are not independent although some appear to be reasonably balanced. I suggest avoiding sources that has a stake in co-governance and stick to independent RSSs, which are few and far between. Personally, I would focus on the concept more than the detail, because that is the nub of the subject. Most media coverage only deals with the examples because that is what most people can digest when listening to RNZ over breakfast. If you heard Shane Jones this morning, while he tried to say what was fundamentally wrong with co-governance (according to NZF and the govt) he was repeatedly asked to say if co-governance was a partnership (yes or no), despite his continued reply that it wasn't as simple as that. Well, he's right. There is likely to be a lot of debate in the next year or two about this, and hopefully a more balanced set of independent sources will appear. Despite saying it is a bit early, I do realise there are countless articles being created about ongoing news events that change on an hourly basis. Sorry if this sounds negative, that is not my intention. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Roger 8 Roger:, thanks for your feedback. For the etymology section, I consulted the Human Right Commission's definition. While the HRC is sympathetic to co-governance, the fact-sheet did try its best to remain balanced and informative. The other useful source was the Auditor-General and Controller's Principles for effectively co-governing natural resources report from 2016. As a public service institution, they are obligated to stay politically neutral. The report's appendices section were useful in providing historical background to various co-governance initiatives under the Fifth National Government. Will keep an eye out for other balanced and independent sources. Media sources tend to be light on detail but can be useful for providing information on political parties' views and responses. Jo Moir's Newsroom article could be useful for fleshing out a views and public opinion section later. Will keep working on the article till I think it is ready for submission. The previous version was basically just linking to other Wikipedia articles. Andykatib (talk) 04:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I could see the sources do have more meat to them than I might have implied. It's good to see someone having a crack at creating a co-governance article. I had thought of adding something to the Maori Renaissance article I re-wrote last year but I then thought not to because I think the topics are fairly separate even though there is a sort of connection. I thought it better to keep co-governance out of it so as not to tarnish the Maori Renaissance with ongoing politics. Of course, someone else might try doing that. Whatever, here is the link to the Shane Jones interview I mentioned - [2] To add fuel to the furnace, we also have the ACT approach to this topic, using a treaty principles bill and a referendum, which is coming at this from another angle. Time will tell... Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Roger 8 Roger: for sharing the Shane Jones interview article. I think ACT's Treaty Principles Bill will be linked to the issue of co-governance. I think the article will continue to grow since co-governance is still an ongoing topic. Wish you all the best with the Māori renaissance article. Andykatib (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"He Kupu Taurangi" by Chris Finlayson and James Christmas has a bit about co-governance. I'll try add. Pakoire (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Pakoire:, appreciate your help. Will check out the article as well. Andykatib (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Andykatib: I took a look at this article, and it's massively improved with your contributions, especially the sourcing. I pushed it through the AFC process because it's clearly suitable as an article now, but I encourage you to finish the work you and others have planned. It's an interesting topic with interesting lessons to teach folks in other countries. -- Beland (talk) 03:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Beland:, thanks for the encouragement and for speeding up the AFC process for the article. I am glad we finally managed to create the co-governance article. It still needs work but is much better than the original draft. Agree that it's an interesting topic with interesting lessons for an international audience. Later on, I hope to work on the different views and positions. Wish you all the best. Andykatib 04:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meetup Golden Bay / Mohua – final call

Golden Bay does have sandy beaches, though

Our meetup in Golden Bay is less than two weeks away. It seems that it's already started, with heaps of editing activity on lots of local topics. But there'll be heaps left to do, with loads of red links on the meetup page. My recommendation is to make a short holiday of it, with the weather generally very settled in February. There's heaps to do and see. A registration link is on the meetup page; a nominal $20 charge will see you fed and watered during the days. If you incur travel costs, there is a $200 subsidy available on request. Schwede66 18:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waikato Innovation Park nominated for speedy deletion

Good evening all,

This hasn't been added to article alerts, maybe because it is a speedy candidate?

The article was created in 2008, and for pretty most of its history has been unreferenced.

UPDATE: it has now been deleted as

Unambiguous advertising or promotion
.

Please let me know if I can assist in admin-y ways - or anything else - with this.

09:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC) Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Late reminder: Aotearoa New Zealand virtual Wiki meet up

Hi folks, a late reminder that the Aotearoa New Zealand meet up will be happening today at 12 noon NZST virtually. For the agenda and link see this page Ambrosia10 (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tokelau and customs checks

Hi, all! I'm updating Customs territory, and can't find enough information online to figure out if Tokelau is inside or outside the New Zealand customs zone. It appears Niue and the Cook Islands are outside, because flights there are treated as international, and you have to go through customs and possibly pay duties when transiting between? Unfortunately, there are no flights to Tokelau and very little information online. Any pointers you could give would be appreciated. -- Beland (talk) 05:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see there are Tokelau Customs Regulations. I'm not sure of the significance of this, but maybe this pointer will help you. Nurg (talk) 09:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nurg: I think that answers the question; thanks! -- Beland (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming

Hi there, wanted some advice about trimming the Sixth Labour Government of New Zealand article, which has grown to a humongous 588K bytes over the past six years. The history section is particularly heavy with content on major policies and initiatives. By comparison, the Fifth National Government of New Zealand is slimmer with about 54K bytes. Any ideas for trimming it down or maybe even creating offshoot articles?

The Sixth National Government of New Zealand is modelled after the Sixth Labour Government article. I am concerned that within six to nine years, it would be really long if I edit it the same way I updated the Sixth Labour Govt article. Open to hearing ideas for both articles. Andykatib (talk) 04:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have just looked at it. Yes, humongous indeed. Without going over why it got like that, here is a simple approach I would take, to the history section at least. Here is an example from that section:
On 21 September, Prime Minister Ardern announced that Auckland would move into Alert Level 2 on 23 September at 11:59pm while the rest of New Zealand would move into Alert Level 1: :on 21 September at 11:59pm. Under Auckland's Alert Level 2 status, public gatherings of 100 people will be allowed but funerals and tangihanga will remain limited to 50
people.[350][351]
Is this important in the bigger scheme? Most of it no. So what is relevant? The Auckland lock down possibly because over the effect it had on
labour's popularity in Auckland. The rest is not relevant and IMO amounts to clutter.
Only one source here in needed. I notice every other dated section has two or three references. Same thing, too many. You could halve the reference section easily.
I would take from this section that Auckland was put in lock down for an excessive time while the rest of the country was not. Then thin out the other dated paragraphs in a :similar way and combine them. You could reduce the wording by 60-70% doing that. However, that will mean getting rid of the way it is currently structured, almost like a diary. :Focus on the issues, not the dates. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Roger 8 Roger:, thanks for your advice regarding condensing the material. Agree that it would be best to trim down the details and to reorganise content in both the Sixth Labour and Sixth National Government pages thematically rather than by year. Some content could probably go into biographical articles on key policy makers or articles on bills, policies and initiatives. Could create draft pages and then copy the changes into the main articles. Andykatib (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest the obvious offshoots are to create First term of the Sixth Labour Government of New Zealand and Second term of the Sixth Labour Government of New Zealand, replacing them in the history section with a few paragraphs (which would correspond to the lead section of those two offshoots).
To get an idea of what's worth splitting off, expand the "Section sizes" at the top of Talk:Sixth Labour Government of New Zealand. Splitting off the entire History section would result in a new article which is also much too big.-gadfium 22:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @
Albanese Government article. Cheers. Andykatib (talk) 11:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

NZ relief map image mistakes

I've just noticed that the NZ relief map used on hundreds of pages has a few mistakes:

  • The Auckland Region southern border is 13 years out of date (and that border isn't even correct for 2009).
  • The West Coast and Southland are merged into a single gigantic region.

Does anyone have experience with replacing versions of maps? Either by updating the .jpg, or switching templates to point towards the correct .svg? --Prosperosity (talk) 07:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that an updated map would be good. I'd also love to have similar relief maps focused on the North and South Islands individually at some point, so that we're not always needing the whole island. Turnagra (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@
AWB, but when I try to get a list of all articles that include this map, I only get 18 articles. That seems way fewer than the "hundreds of pages" claimed, reliably I'm sure, by Prosperity. I'll ask the AWB community if they can help me out... Kiwipete (talk) 01:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@Kiwipete It's the relief map used by Template:Location map for New Zealand (see Module:Location map/data/New Zealand), so there would absolutely be hundreds of pages that it's used on but perhaps only a few that directly use the image rather than through the location map template? Looking at the links for the module, the total comes to around 1150, so definitely a few! Turnagra (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Turnagra, does that mean that only the module itself needs to be updated? I don't have the necessary rights to edit it, but I can request an edit. There should probably be some consensus here first, though. Kiwipete (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having said that, the SVG is completely bland, with no relief colouring. What we really need is a combination of the two - a relief map with the correct boundaries. Kiwipete (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe so, yeah. The module uses both maps - the location map is generally for political things like towns, while the relief map is for natural features. I would assume that updating the relief map on the module would parse the update through to all pages which use that module in the same way that updating a template does so for all pages that use it. Turnagra (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted a request for an update to the map
here. Kiwipete (talk) 07:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm less worried about the missing or obsolete boundary lines than as I am that the projection seems to be misleading in that the map's been stretched east-west and compressed north-south. This is most obvious in the lower South Island when drawing a line Awarua Point - Puysegur - Slope Point what should be an about 90 degree angle is more like about 70-75 degrees. Daveosaurus (talk) 10:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would that be a result of trying to ensure the latitude and longitude lines are straight, for ease of setting up the map module? Agree that the projection is weird, but I'd only want to change that if there's someone who can actually do the required maths to hook up the location map parameters. Turnagra (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As this is an Equirectangular projection, my guess is that they tried to make it look like a New Zealand transverse Mercator, without having to do the calculations. To be fair, it works, but if someone is very familiar with the Equirectangular projection, they would probably find it odd looking. M.Bitton (talk) 01:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The map has been stretched north-south by 120%. M.Bitton (talk) 01:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me more like it's been stretched east-west - or am I missing something here? The New Zealand I live in I'm used to seeing looking like this on maps: https://geodatahub.library.auckland.ac.nz/public/maps/LINZ/NZMS/NZMS_268/jpg/NZMS268_NewZealand_1988.jpg see especially the southern half of the South Island, the area I'm most familiar with, and which looks very distorted on the Wikipedia relief map. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On an equirectangular map NZ does look a bit wider than the usual projection, but I agree that the one we've got feels more off. Turnagra (talk) 09:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're used to a different projection, that's why it looks distorted to you. M.Bitton (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at the finished maps and let me know what you think. M.Bitton (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These look really lovely, thank you so much!
Is it possible to make the Clutha and Waikato rivers a little more prominent on the location map? I notice they seem to be popping in and out of existence (I'm guessing it's picking up wider sections of the rivers and hydro lakes). The Clutha is probably fine to start showing up south of Lake Dunstan, but ideally the entire Waikato River starting from Lake Taupo should be showing up. Prosperosity (talk) 19:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added another comment on the map workshop page directly, mainly relating to the colour scheme, which should hopefully help draw those out a bit. Turnagra (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the rivers (as provided by data.govt.nz) do not come with any relevant information, I used a different database and updated the map to only highlight the rivers whose discharge rate is between 0,1 m3/s and 1 m3/s. M.Bitton (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great, thanks! Prosperosity (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those maps look much better, thanks. I've got a couple of minor quibbles but any improvement is good and I don't have the technical know-how to fix them myself. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have any quibbles with the previous map, now is the perfect time to voice them as I started working (slowly) on a configurable map of New Zealand that would make highlighting the various regions and districts very easy (something similar to this, along with an documentation page). The projection will be the same as the map that you mentioned previously, though it won't be a location map. M.Bitton (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the others, that's a big improvement - thank you! Are you able to update the relevant location map pages too, or is someone else better placed to do that? Turnagra (talk) 05:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since these are drop-in replacements, updating the template is dead easy, but unfortunately given that it's locked, only an admin or a template editor will be able to do that. M.Bitton (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, good to know - Schwede66 or Gadfium, is this something either of you would be able to help with? Turnagra (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried a simple substitution of the new images into Module:Location map/data/New Zealand, but the coordinates aren't quite the same as the old maps. Probably this is a matter for tweaking the border coordinates in that module. I'll leave it to someone more experienced with location maps. I suggest @Grutness: has the skills.-Gadfium (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gadfium: You're right, the coordinates are not the same (also pinging Turnagra). This should work:
return {
	name = 'New Zealand',
	top = -33.9,
	bottom = -47.8,
	left = 165.9,
	right = 179.1,
	image = 'New Zealand (location map).svg',
	image1 = 'New Zealand (relief map).png',
	mark = 'Disc Plain red.svg',
	marksize = 5
}
M.Bitton (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. What do I need to do? Schwede66 18:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, it should just be a case of updating Module:Location map/data/New Zealand to point to the new images (here and here), and then ensuring that the coordinate in the module for the edge of the map line up with the coordinates in the image descriptions. Turnagra (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've dropped the protection level of that module; it can now be edited by extended confirmed users. That might be better than me muddling around in an area where I have little experience. Say when it's all done and then we'll restore the previous protection level. Schwede66 21:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done it looks fine to me, but please do check it to make sure. M.Bitton (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, thank you!
On the off chance, would you also be willing to do similar maps specifically for each main island? I've been keen to have these for a while but have never got around to putting a request in, and am hoping that it should be reasonably straightforward if you've already got the stuff put together for NZ as a whole. I'm happy to handle hooking the maps up as new location maps and all that, would just need the images. No worries if you've got other stuff on though, of course! Turnagra (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA reviewer wanted for: Wharves in Wellington Harbour

The article Wharves in Wellington Harbour has been nominated for a GA review. This article may be of particular interest to editors in Wellington, or those who have some knowledge of Wellington, but the GA review does not require any specialist knowledge. The article might be suitable for an editor who has not previously undertaken a GA review. Any takers ? Marshelec (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marshelec: it doesn't look like anyone has picked this up yet? I'm expecting to have some free time this weekend, so can take it on (as my first GA review). :) Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chocmilk03 Great, many thanks. I hope you find it interesting. Much of the work was done by User:Wainuiomartian, but I also contributed some content. I am sure this will be a useful experience for you in testing an article against the GA criteria. If you are interested in how I document a GA review, see: Talk:Stuart Memorial, Dunedin. Marshelec (talk) 04:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Michael Wood (New Zealand politician)#Requested move 18 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Michael Wood (New Zealand politician)#Requested move 18 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Leggat

Here's another one of those super-poor regional cricket bios: Richard Leggat. The chap is actually quite notable for more recent activities. I've posted on the talk page a couple of things that he's been up to. I know him well, hence have a COI. I shall add a reasonably recent photo, though. Schwede66 22:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at
Talk:Kingston (band)#Requested move 28 February 2024

Talk:Kingston (band)#Requested move 28 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Newshub sources

Is there an automated process by which we can auto-archive any Newshub citation used on Wikipedia, so that when the website inevitably goes down later this year and we lose yet another trove of online news, we at least have it available from the Wayback Machine? — Jon (talk) 02:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm going to get a list of all articles which cite Newshub and submit a bot job with
IABot. —Panamitsu (talk) 04:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually, looking at
WP:PLRT, they are archived automatically 24 hours after a citation is added. So we wouldn't need to do anything by the looks of it. The text striked out refers to archives on the Wayback Machine rather than saving the references. —Panamitsu (talk) 04:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Draft Help

Hello to the NZ group here.

I had started on this draft here at Draft:Alex Breingan. I think I tagged the NZ group here all okay. This TV producer and former radio host, I searched was previously a host on RadioLive. I now that this radio station is now no longer active but I managed to find a web archive source which I added to the draft. Does this still work for Wikipedia even if the website is now down? (I did the same in the beginning for NZ Herald articles that I added but were premium articles, but I found them through another web archive) Happy to get feedback on the draft of if there is any reviewers from NZ to check it? Thank you! MathewArmstrong (talk) 03:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. This article has now been updated. Just awaiting for review. Just as many sources are from New Zealand, I wanted to hopefully get a NZ reviewer to check it. Thank you! MathewArmstrong (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two citations to an article titled "Fake mews". Is it really called that? Nurg (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Well it seems to have come up in the auto-generated citation tool. Strange as yes, I don't see it in the article itself. MathewArmstrong (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is the auto-generated citation tool? Nurg (talk) 07:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming the button you get in the 'add citation' popup which auto-populates fields when you enter the URL / DOI / ISBN of a source. Turnagra (talk) 07:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's right. Just comes up when you click on add citation @Nurg. @Turnagra - if you are able to review the draft, that would be great. Thank you! As you are a Kiwi - you will be able to check the sources added. MathewArmstrong (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure - I've been in a bit of a Wikipedia funk lately so haven't done a huge amount anywhere, but I've been meaning to try and get to the NZ-related AfC drafts (and the national parks) at the very least. I'll try and have a look either today or later this week, if Nurg hasn't gotten to it already. Turnagra (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I'll update a few tweaks, just about Choice TV (eden.) that I have been able to find. Thank you! MathewArmstrong (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't recall ever seeing an 'add citation' popup. Maybe I'm editing in a different way. Do you have to be using the visual editor, or something? Is there help info about how to get the popup to appear? Nurg (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They'll be using VisualEditor - there's a button which pre-populates citations based on metadata from the citation's website. Prosperosity (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I use source. It's this thing, which is in the editor window by default. See the section on 'autofill'. Turnagra (talk) 05:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I temporarily enabled VisualEditor and yes there's a thing called "Cite" and I have confirmed that in some cases it creates citations containing errors. These erroneous citations have bugged me for quite some time and I have finally confirmed my suspicions that they are created by a "tool" of the automated type. I don't have "Cite" in my source editor so evidently I don't have RefToolbar/2.0 enabled. I fixed two of the erroneous citations in Draft:Alex Breingan in this edit. Someone should correct the "Fake mews" ones as well. Nurg (talk) 10:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Nurg! I’ve corrected and removed the “Fake mews” title :) Thank you! MathewArmstrong (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, they (two of them) are still not correct. The title is "TV: 'Reality' show Rich Listers, on luxury property market, is fake" and it was published in 2022, not February or March 2024. Several other refs have incorrect publication dates too. Nurg (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Nurg. This was an issue from what I see from the auto cite button (same with the title names). I have gone through and fixed these up. Thank you! :) MathewArmstrong (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The citation tool is picking up <meta property="og:title" content="Fake mews: Producers of new 'reality' show reveal it's not real"/> in the source html, which does not appear in the output. Presumably it is searching the html for "title". The 'fake mews' might have been a title when the news article was first drafted.-Gadfium (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Picture This! Share your photos with the world

Kia ora. I'm here to boost an event WANZ are running in Wellington on Saturday 9 March, to encourage photographers to share their photos on Commons. All is explained here: Wikipedia:Meetup/Wellington/Picture This Photography Event and there is a link there to sign up. Cheers, your host, Quilt Phase (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Wiki meetup Aotearoa New Zealand TODAY!

Hi everyone, just a reminder that our regular virtual meet up for New Zealand editors and those editors editing New Zealand content is being held today at Noon. For the link to attend as well as the agenda please click here. Hope to see you there Ambrosia10 (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCon Aotearoa New Zealand 2024 in Auckland on March 23/24

Kia ora, Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand have been organising the Aotearoa New Zealand WikiCon for 2024. It's being held in Auckland at AUT on the weekend of 23/24 March 2024. Details of programme is in the link.

Cost is $10 per person for the entire weekend.

Register here: https://events.humanitix.com/wikicon-aotearoa-2024

There's something for both experienced editors and newbies. Please share and pass on the information to anyone that might be interested. Einebillion (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francophone Women★ Writers Fortnight 2024

Bonjour! Hope no one minds if I share this here, just for a bit of added visibility.

I'm a representative of the WikiWomen's User Group, and from 16th to 31st March we're supporting the work of the French project Les sans pagEs in running the Francophone Women★ Writers Fortnight 2024. The aim of this fortnight-long edit-a-thon is to showcase the diversity of Francophone women and non-binary writers from all over the world.

More information, including how to sign up and participate, and suggested articles to work on, is available at the English project meet-up page here: Francophone Women Writers Fortnight 2024. In the list of suggested articles, I've included some authors with a New Zealand connection (through holding the Randell Cottage Writers' Residency) who have articles on French Wikipedia but not in English.

It would be awesome to have some more contributors join who are interested in improving or creating articles about French-speaking women writers. :) Merci beaucoup, Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons: Media in category "Green Party candidates for 2023 New Zealand general election"

Kia ora, the original uncropped images in this category all got deleted? Is that supposed to have happened? TheLoyalOrder (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCon 2024 Auckland happening this weekend

Kia ora, This weekend will see a number of editors coming together for the Aotearoa New Zealand WikiCon for 2024. It's being held in Auckland at AUT. Places are still available. Cost is $10 per person for the entire weekend. Morning tea, afternoon tea and lunch will be provided. See the link above for the full programme.

Register here if you want to come along: https://events.humanitix.com/wikicon-aotearoa-2024

There's something for both experienced editors and newbies. Please share and pass on the information to anyone that might be interested. Einebillion (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCon 2024 Auckland - Presentations available online

For those who are interested in the Auckland WikiCon happening this weekend - the presentations are going up in the WikiCon 2024 page as the presentations are being delivered. They make really interesting reading! Einebillion (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

English language variants

Could others please weigh in at Talk:Adventure Consultants? I don't want to get into edit warring with an editor over American spelling. Schwede66 22:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Propeller Records

Notice

The article Propeller Records has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Cited to one questionably-reliable source for 17.89 years, lacking any evidence of

notability
.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

deleted for any of several reasons
.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question

What's the consensus around adding a politician's political ideology eg. left-wing or right-wing to the lead of said politician's article? I have been noticing it more and more. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 07:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found a straight up answer but had a look at Donald Trump, Rishi Sunak, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren where I would assume this has been debated, and they both don't have left/right. I think the left-right spectrum mentioned on its own can be problematic because there is often a difference in someone's position on the spectrum economically vs socially. I think it's better to just describe the person's beliefs. —Panamitsu (talk) 07:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks for you comment Panamitsu. I agree with you. David Seymour and Efeso Collins are examples. I think it should just stay in the political views section. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 08:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those descriptions should always be supported by a reliable source. Schwede66 08:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to think it isn't necessary. We'll generally (and rightly so) have their political party somewhere in the lede, and where they sit on the left/right spectrum can generally be inferred from that (at least to the extent that it needs to be for the lede). Any further detail can be covered in a political views section as necessary. Turnagra (talk) 08:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

European/Pākehā settlers

As I'm sure many of you are aware of, a while ago we renamed the Pākehā settlers article to

WP:RETAIN
?

I discussed this BilledMammal's talk page here, but neither of us reached an agreement on what to do. —Panamitsu (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 3 articles in my watch-list which were changed as above now have a redlink "European settlers" - before it was "Pākehā settlers" linked to the article "European settlers in New Zealand". So from a functional point of view this change has broken the links which is not an improvement. Some sources I use have the language 'Pākehā settlers', and my understanding of the Wikipedia guidelines is that it a reflection of sources so it feels to me it should be case by case not a blanket change. Pakoire (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, sorry.
In regards to the substance of the concern, I think it is better to use the more recognizable term. In addition, most of these articles were already using European in reference to these settlers in every location except the link; it makes sense to make those articles consistent. BilledMammal (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As BilledMammal noted in that exact move request, prior to the move both titles were used depending on the context, and I don't see any reason why that should change with the change in the article's title. To me, it feels like these changes are pretty clearly pushing an agenda (especially in keeping with that editor's track record of other changes and attempted changes), and go against PAG as you've mentioned. In my view, editing a link to remove a word you don't like only to leave a red link in its place is textbook vandalism, and should be treated as such. Turnagra (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
is textbook vandalism
WP:VANDALISM has a very specific definition on Wikipedia, and this doesn't meet that - I know I've asked you this many times before, but can you please stop with the personal attacks? I know we often disagree on content but that doesn't mean we can't be civil. BilledMammal (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
There must be a standard version used in WP with other terms used only when the context clearly allows it. The standard term here must be European settlers, as discussed at length elsewhere. This decision is simply on the matter of being understood by as many readers as possible and not on the basis of what might or might not be allowed by wikipedia rules. We can make that decision, which I think is the intended use of consensus decision making. If we allow two versions to be used based simply on the preference of the editor or because it is technically allowed under a particular guideline, then I think that is irresponsible because of the confusion and extra work it will constantly involve. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Māori dialects?

This is something which has been kicking around in my head for a while, so I figured I'd post something and gauge whether it could be something worth looking further into. In instances where we use Māori words in the article for whatever reason, should we be aiming to do so in a way that reflects the dialect of the iwi which has

WP:TIES to the topic? Obviously this isn't something which we could do in all instances due to things like a lack of clear information, competing iwi affiliations, and so on, but there are absolutely instances where we probably could - for example, using Kai Tahu Māori for South Island things, or the use of a double vowel instead of a macron for Tainui-related things like the kiingitanga. Turnagra (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

I think wikipedia prefers the use of one form of a language, whatever that language might be. That form should also be the most easily understood and preferable of a formal encyclopedic nature which removes dialectic variations. It's a practical solution that I think is generally not opposed. In English, everyone understands standard/BBC/King's English. It doesn't prejudice any other regional variant. I don't know if there is a similar standard form for te reo Maori but if there isn't, and it's causing problems, it might be worth opting for one and sticking with it. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@
MOS:ENGVAR
, but I take it you're talking about regional/local dialects of English rather than national dialects?
For my part, I'd probably be inclined to follow what is most commonly used in reliable sources, which I think for
kīngitanga (for example) is still the version with the macron. The current approach of having kiingitanga explained in a footnote seems sensible to me. If over time kiingitanga becomes the term in more common usage, then that can be preferred. Generally following the sources seems like a safe way to go. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 05:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, that sounds like a sensible standard that would work but others who knew the language would have to make that choice. Before, I meant a standard version per country, so King's English would apply to the UK and a different standard English form would be used for another country. For many English speaking countries that would still be BBC newsreader/King's English anyway with some pronunciation differences. I don't really class accents as dialects. I think there is a standard form of French that is monitored from Paris in a effort to stop the spread of words like "Le weekend". I don't know if they've reached Christchurch yet to pass judgement on "Le race" each year by bike from the city to Akaroa. On RNZ this morning was a story about the public's huge loss of faith in what they hear from newsreaders on TVNZ and RNZ, which probably excludes their version of standard NZ English. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that reflecting how sources discuss a topic is usually a good way to establish what best practice for the topic should be, but I can see this being an issue when a topic has little written about it recently. I'd personally do this on a case-by-case basis, considering the preferences of local dialect, what sources use, and what is useful to someone who knows nothing about the topic. I'd definitely try to mention dialectical spelling/word variation in an article the first time a word is used. Prosperosity (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wellington Wiki meetup

Reminder: The Wellington Wiki meetup is happening tomorrow at 10am until noon Saturday 13 April 2024 at the Programme Rooms (behind the reception desk), Ground Floor of National Library, corner Molesworth and Aitken Streets, Wellington See this link for the agenda. Ambrosia10 (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dark sky places - include in Template: Protected areas of New Zealand ?

I have recently been working on several articles about accredited dark sky places in New Zealand. Current articles are here: en:Category:Dark-sky preserves in New Zealand. I have been thinking about creating a navbox template to put at the bottom of each of these. There may be more articles in future, given the increasing interest from various communities in seeking accreditation as a dark sky place. My question is: Would it be appropriate to add Dark Sky Preserves (or similar) as a new category within Template:Protected areas of New Zealand. This template is already fairly large, so I would appreciate feedback on this proposal before I go ahead. Marshelec (talk) 07:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that Dark Sky Reserves don't have any legal standing at the national level, is that right? If so, I probably wouldn't include it in the protected areas template. Definitely a fan of having a separate navbox for them, though! Turnagra (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the "eligibility" to be categorised as a protected area is an interesting aspect. Looking at some articles about dark sky places in other countries, it is common to find that they are set up using a protected areas infobox template, and/or placed into a protected areas category. For the existing Protected areas of New Zealand navbox template, I note that there are already topics/areas in the template that are not registered as protected areas in LINZ data (for example Zealandia and Bushy Park (New Zealand).) I think this means those areas don't have protection via national legislation. In Wikidata, it is common for the items about Dark Sky preserves to be classified using the statement d:wiki/Property:P1435 - heritage designation (this parameter is given a really broad definition including protected status). A possible future step is to create new WP infobox templates for all dark sky preserves, and review the modelling in Wikidata, but for now, I think it is best to follow the examples from other countries. I have seen a couple of cases from the US where articles about dark sky preserves are included in navbox templates for Protected areas - hence my question. I hope a few others will also chip in with feedback :).Marshelec (talk) 08:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that consistency across Wikipedia is more important that alignment with the exact legal status in NZ. Schwede66 02:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For sure, I'm just conscious that the navbox is already very big (not to mention inconsistent). For instance, it only has two of the 215
Government Purpose Reserves, and only 5 of the hundreds of scenic reserves. It's obviously impractical to include all of them, but I'm wondering whether we need to be thinking about how to best use that template overall, rather than just adding more stuff to it? Turnagra (talk) 05:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, I noted that the protected areas navbox was large already, hence my question. Perhaps I should create a completely new navbox, just for dark sky preserves. I haven't created a new template before, but presumably it is not difficult.Marshelec (talk) 08:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a reorderable list would be more helpful than a nav box (though, of course, one doesn't preclude the other). Furius (talk) 08:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Just to be clear, are you suggesting I create a new list article for the dark sky preserves in New Zealand ? Marshelec (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be really helpful, yes. This would provide the opportunity to include additional information like location, date of establishment, brief notes on legal status if necessary, in tabular form (compare List of protected areas of Bulgaria). Of course, one could have a navbox too; they would be doing slightly different things.
[Theoretically, one could have a single list of protected areas of New Zealand (like the Bulgaria example just cited), including all the dark-sky areas, but I think this would run into the same issue of being too long, which you have already raised with respect to a navbox: there are so many such areas, that I think a separate list of dark-sky areas makes more sense.] Furius (talk) 09:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Marine_reserves_of_New_Zealand#List_of_reserves is a better and more relevant example than Bulgaria) Furius (talk) 09:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_Zealand_Wikipedians%27_notice_board&oldid=1218868336"