Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 35

Registrations now open for a Women in Architecture editathon 20 May. Women + Architecture have organised a walking tour for the morning to take photos and an editing session at Auckland Museum. Join both or just one part. Register for catering purposes! https://www.architecturewomen.org.nz/events/other/a-w-nz-wikiproject-walking-tour-edit-a-thon Pakoire (talk) 01:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi – I am drafting an article on the New Zealand animation studio

Replied on the Talk page

Draft talk:Mukpuddy Animation. Marshelec (talk) 04:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Reminder! There is a physical meetup for Wellington Wiki folk tomorrow Saturday 13th May at 10am NZ time at the He Matapihi Molesworth Library at National Library, corner Molesworth & Aitken Streets. See the agenda for more information. Ambrosia10 (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In archiving stuff from the first third of the year this morning, I can't help but notice that the archive list is pretty long now. I wanted to gauge people's views on whether it'd be worth cleaning up a bit. My initial thought was whether we add the archive list to the archive template already on the side (or add a second one to keep the distinction between the talk page and noticeboard archives), but there might be more things we want to consider as well:

• there are a lot of old notices up the top around media references or talk page changes – do we still need to keep these?
• the wider wikiproject pages are in various states as well. I've tried to update some of them where I can but I think they probably need a bit more of a concerted effort at some point.

We could maybe also look at an overall facelift, maybe to something akin to what

Here's a list of the 2023 Ockham NZ Book Awards winners, if anyone's interested in making some new pages:

• Catherine Chidgey  Done
• Alice Te Punga Somerville  Done
• Nick Bollinger (Q94382495
  )
• Ned Fletcher (Q114797108)
• Anthony Lapwood  Done
• Khadro Mohamed (Q107106618)
• Christall Lowe (Q118435013)
• Noelle McCarthy  Done

--Prosperosity (talk) 11:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Prosperosity! I've started working on a draft for Noelle McCarthy (surprised she didn't have a page already). Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Several Wellington Meetup editors will be meeting in person from around 9am until the library closes at 1pm at the He Matapihi Molesworth Library at National Library, corner Molesworth and Aitken Streets, Wellington to participate in the Saturday 20th May 2023 Women in Architecture Editathon. See Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/New Zealand Women in Architecture WikiProject for more information on the project and information on the Auckland and Dunedin events. Other editors are very welcome to join us if you are in town. Ambrosia10 (talk) 00:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After a Wikipedia New Zealand Facebook discussion late last year, I emailed the Knowledge Equity Fund about a potential large NZ project I thought might be eligible for funding on the basis of the fund's focus: "We decided to focus on racial equity because it is a pervasive problem that is inextricably linked to the work of knowledge equity. Many of the barriers that prevent people from accessing and contributing to free knowledge are rooted in systems of racial oppression. Due to colonization and slavery, knowledge from Black, Indigenous and communities of colour around the world have been systematically excluded and erased from the historical canon".

Although I also read the fund provided "Compensation for well-defined roles that do not replace volunteer activities" so I asked if it was worth me applying for funding for 100–200 days of editing over a two year period.

I didn't hear back from any of the three wikimedia.org fund addresses I emailed (including the two regional grant committee 'Contact us' emails here) and while I'm not interested in applying now, I still think the project is an important one.

Since 1975, indigenous Māori iwi and hapū and successive NZ governments have been working through about 200 claims of breaches of the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi. Prior to 1975, New Zealand post-colonisation historical records were mostly written from the point of view of the colonisers, and Māori oral histories were largely silenced. One amazing 'by-product' of the 100 or so Treaty settlements from these claims has been the formal, written 'Historical Accounts' that the Crown and Māori have agreed to, and have been published as Deed of Settlements by the Crown. Only about half of these settlements are currently listed in the Wikipedia article: Treaty of Waitangi claims and settlements.

And very little of the agreed history appears to be contained in the individual iwi or hapū Wikipedia articles.

The project I have in mind is to work through every settlement and write the agreed post-colonisation histories and settlement outcomes (where they haven’t already been) into Wikipedia, at the same time sourcing pre-colonisation histories and notable recent news, again where that hasn't already been done.

Here’s a randomly chosen example of an iwi article: Ngāti Apa.

And its Deed of Settlement.

The other settlements can be found here.

Who's keen? E James Bowman (talk) 03:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that approach is that these agreed histories within treaty settlements between the Crown and Maori, written into the Deeds of Settlement, are all primary sources and should not be used to create a Wikipedia article. If you can find any early secondary sources that would be useful, but they would be so old they too would be more like primary sources that should be confirmed by recent secondary sources. However, I agree they could be useful: they open up leads of inquire that might not have been there before. As well as that there is often a blurred distinction between what is primary and what is secondary with those sorts of documents – each should be judged on its own merits and a lot will depend on the wording used when using them as sources in any given article. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The treaty settlements are primary sources for the details of the settlement. However, I disagree that the "historical accounts" are primary sources for the history of colonial experience. They are based on interviews, archival research ( = primary sources), and existing scholarship, which they synthesise that into a narrative (= a secondary source) that was subjected to review. They enjoy a reputation in New Zealand historical scholarship as examples of really top-notch research.

E James Bowman's proposal is a fantastic one and necessary, since the articles on individual iwi are, at the moment, short and undercited. The points about knowledge equity are important ones. It's also a huge project; it might make sense to restrict it to a single iwi or set of iwi to start with.

I think it would also be important to find ways to integrate these points into NZ geography articles. Furius (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest opening a discussion at RSN about the historical accounts; I think it is a complicated question that needs a full discussion. BilledMammal (Furius) 11:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I said the distinction between primary and secondary was often blurred, which

Treaty of Waitangi Act say (5.2) "In exercising any of its functions under this section the Tribunal shall have regard to the 2 texts of the Treaty set out in Schedule 1 and, for the purposes of this Act, shall have exclusive authority to determine the meaning and effect of the Treaty as embodied in the 2 texts and to decide issues raised by the differences between them." In other words, what the treaty means and the effect it has had is what the tribunal says it means and what the tribunal says is the effect it has had. For the purpose of settlements that is fine but it raised serious questions about using the tribunal as an independent source for historic events, especially as members are appointed at the discretion of the minister. I agree with BilledMammal a wider discussion is would be useful. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

That's not quite the case – the historical accounts are collaborative works between different researchers. The researchers' names aren't named in the final documents, but the accounts are based on a compromise between what Waitangi Tribunal researchers and what can be established by the iwi/hapū, through a mix of historical documents, oral traditions, pūrākau, whakapapa, etc. It's not the tribunal appointees who are creating historic accounts, but Waitangi Tribunal historians, members of iwi/hapū, and historians employed by iwi/hapū. The tribunal also has a vested interest to make sure that these are as accurate as possible (or at least as provable), so that the claims are settled and that there aren't major issues later on with other groups who have different claims. --Prosperosity (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If anybody is thinking of setting up a project, with funding sought from the Wikimedia Foundation or related entities, I suggest that the editor should as one of the first steps check in with the Wikimedia User Group of Aotearoa New Zealand. That page is seriously out of date but the committee (and an email address for the secretary) are listed under the heading "2022/23 Top Priority: Incorporation". Schwede66 23:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Furius that details about the settlement in each Deed of Settlement are reliable primary sources, and should be treated as such on Wikipedia, and that the Historical Accounts are reliable secondary sources.

@Schwede66 FYI, I asked a committee member directly about this project idea on their Facebook post about the fund mentioned above, but they didn't respond, so I 'hit up' the Regional Grant Committee, as suggested in the same FB discussion. At least two other committee members were involved in that discussion. E James Bowman (talk) 00:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi – I love this idea too and will be part of any project ideas. I agree with Prosperosity's assessment of the history information in the settlements and associated reports. Always up for more discussion too. I know the WANZ committee (that I am part of) have moved forward in leaps and bounds over the past few weeks and months E James Bowman, so it may be the advise to seek external funding was good at the time? I look forward to where this may go and am keen to be involved. Pakoire (talk) 05:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a great idea – making sure that we have some good sources and facts for all iwi/hapū articles sounds worthwhile. I'd recommend trying to reach out groups as you make pages, explaining what an improved article would be like, what limitations we have at Wikipedia, and seeing if anyone wanted to learn how to edit for themselves (e.g. creating pages on historically important tūpuna, adding historical information to general pages, making pages on the Reo Māori Wikipedia, etc. --Prosperosity (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:E James Bowman, if you can, could you find an example of what you want to be done and how. I suppose that means finding one claim that has been settled and picking out the parts that describe what actually happened. That would help in any discussion because without something concrete to discuss we will struggle to reach any verifiable consensus beyond bland platitudes. An example of the need for precision is your comment above: have been working through about 200 claims of breaches of the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi. The tribunal works through breaches of the principals of the treaty, not the treaty itself. Look on the tribunal's website if anyone wants to, page 9. [1]. For the avoidance of any doubt, I think the idea has merit and I am all for looking into the proposal in more depth; it's just that I don't think it is as straightforward as it first sounds. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the differences between the Treaty, te Tiriti, and the principles thereof (which is an entirely different kettle of fish, and a hell of a rabbit hole to go down) has any real bearing on the accuracy or suitability of the historical accounts as sources though. We should be fine to use those historical accounts and ensure our coverage of the settlements themselves is up to scratch, at the very least. Turnagra (talk) 09:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Roger 8 Roger. See the 2nd & 3rd paragraphs of Ngāti Pāoa#Early history for a small example I did in 2019 (I've just now updated the citation to the Deed of Settlement). Nurg (talk) 11:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've used the Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Deed of Settlement as a source in a number of articles including Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei and Auckland Domain. Are you referring to the 9th page of the PDF you linked to, which is page 1 of the document? It says: "The Waitangi Tribunal’s mission is to uphold the principles of the Treaty/Te Tiriti. It does so by serving as the primary forum for hearing and reporting on Māori claims against the Crown alleging breaches of the Treaty, offering a ‘truth and reconciliation’ process and impartial findings on claims. Not "breaches of the principals of the treaty" as you've said, but "breaches of the Treaty" as I said. E James Bowman (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EJB. I refer to p. 9/24. To quote, with my stress: "Role and functions – The Waitangi Tribunal was established by statute in 1975 as a standing commission of inquiry. It provides an independent, impartial, public, and accessible forum to which Māori can bring their claims concerning Crown laws, policies, and actions that they allege to be in breach of Treaty principles and to have resulted in prejudice to the claimants." The tribunal is simply unable to decide on breaches of the 1840 treaty. Any decisions would not stand up in law and would therefore be of no greater value than what we write here in WP. That is why the modern day principles were created – breaches of the principles would carry legal weight. That is also why the 1840 'treaty' isn't worth much as from a legal point of view. There is so much casual reference to 'breaches of the treaty' flying around in the media, and here in WP, that confusion or misunderstanding or even misuse is the result. We have an obligation to do better in WP to be more precise. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given your Waitangi Tribunal reference page uses both "breaches of the Treaty" and "breach of Treaty principles", and the opening paras of the Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Deed of Settlement that I referred to above says it "sets out an account of the acts and omissions of the Crown […] that affected Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei and breached the Treaty of Waitangi and its principals" and that it "provides an acknowledgement by the Crown of the Treaty breaches", both ways of describing the breaches are acceptable. E James Bowman (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that this content needs to be in wikipedia, but I'm not necessarily sure putting it on the iwi pages is the right way to handle this. I'm inclined to look more towards articles such as

Fair point. Surely, we need some mixture of both: stand alone articles on notable settlements (probably all of them?), plus references to them on iwi pages and local geographical pages, so that readers actually find the more detailed pages.

It is a common wiki problem that the articles on narrower topics get improved, while the articles on broader concepts get stuck. At the moment, most of the iwi articles are in the latter category. Furius (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nurg's link to an actual settlement deed is helpful. I am hesitant in saying these accounts should be treated as much more than informed blogs though. They are published, by the Crown, and that should at least establish notability for most of the detail they contain. However, most government published sources everywhere are fine for established uncontested facts, like census results, but their usefulness becomes murky when they start giving opinions. I prefer treating such official opinion based statements as self-published sources, making them primary. This undoubted expert on the topic expresses a view on the quality of the tribunal's statements here [2] and there are plenty of other concerns raised elsewhere. I think if the tribunal's deeds or reports are used in a history section it should be made clear it is the tribunal's opinion that...XYZ. This is especially important of statements of fact, from early pre-1840 times that can only be based on oral tradition. I like the idea of giving these sources greater weight in articles about the settlements themselves that in mainstream history articles where I think we should strive to use undoubted quality reliable secondary sources. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very established and mainstream opinion that there was little understanding of what sovereignty actually was, to the degree that the te reo version had to effectively create a word (Kāwanatanga, or Governor-ness). It's a complicated situation, and going down the kāwanatanga/tino rangatiratanga rabbit hole isn't particularly useful for what these resources are useful for: describing cultural contexts, histories, names, dates, etc.

These reports have a much higher degree of scrutiny than most history texts, but they're still works on history, which is an act of interpretation. Just because someone has a dissenting opinion about some aspects of a work (which is true for almost any history work I can think of, to be honest), doesn't mean that the text becomes primary. --Prosperosity (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was mention a couple of times at our online meetup today about emeritus professors, who may be notable for Wp purposes. I made a Listeria page here for all emeritus professors at NZ institutions, without WP pages, showing awards and images where they have them. (Listeria works off Wikidata, so there will likely be many more emeritus professors than we know about on this page. If you want to add someone to the list, the instructions on what to add to their Wikidata item are at the top of the Listeria page. But any problems let me know, always happy to help!). DrThneed (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Stuartyeates (talk) 09:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks Stuart. Some emeritus profs (and ordinary profs) are very hard to find anything about and are a bit of a lost cause. Depends a bit on the institution, I find, as well as the subject area, and whether they have other awards etc. However it's really nice to have as many as we know about in Wikidata, so that when there's a flurry of sources because they got an honour or died or something, we aren't starting from scratch! DrThneed (talk) 09:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About a month ago, it was decided that

The article has subsequently been moved to Mana (Oceanian cultures). Oronsay (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see a merger proposal at

The psychology academic Waikaremoana Waitoki reached out to me recently, and was concerned about some of the content that was on her Wikipedia page. I got her consent a few years back when I wrote the article, but now as she is working more within researching racism, she's concerned that the content will be used to doxx her. Does anyone have any thoughts around the best way of going about this? Her main concerns were personal life details (the shortened form of her name, karate, etc) and her photo. I'm not sure if there's a lot we can do about the photo as it's from a Royal Society Te Apārangi event, but did anyone have any thoughts/opinions on what would be reasonable to remove? --Prosperosity (talk) 00:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kia ora. I'm a researcher on the radical right in my day job. Looking through that article, there is little that would be able to be doxxed that people wouldn't be able to find through even the most simple google search. Whilst I understand her nervousness around it, I do not think her wiki poses much of a risk. I can't be more helpful than that, sorry. Nauseous Man (talk) 02:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be unhappy with the sentence about her children & grandchildren being removed – I'm often hesitant about WP including info about subject's children who have no public profile, and it's usually fairly trivial, as I think it is in this case. Otherwise, it is not obvious to me what info poses a risk to her. What info (which if removed) would malicious people not be able to find from other sources? Nurg (talk) 02:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Nurg. Schwede66 02:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've removed the mention of her kids and her shortened name (which doesn't appear in most professional contexts), and that will hopefully alleviate some of her concerns. --Prosperosity (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated

I'm in the process of reporting back to the Wikimedia Foundation on my attendance at the SPNHC2023 conference. My physical attendance was made possible as a result of a rapid funding grant from the Wikimedia Foundation. While attending the conference I was able to make two presentations to conference attendees, one on a Wiki aligned project I've been involved with and the other attempting to convince natural history institutions to become more engaged with the wiki ecosystem. The slides and scripts of these presentations can be found here and here. As part of my reporting back I've drafted up a report on my impressions of the conference which can be found here. I would like to express my thanks to the Wikimedia Foundation for enabling me to attend this conference. Ambrosia10 (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! The draft

• worked for Environmental Organisations since 2020, working on both regional and national levels
• was a speaker at TEDxNelson who gave a
  TEDx talk
  titled 'The Power Of Connecting Young People To Nature.'
• was involved with the translocation of Fluttering Shearwater to the Wharariki Eco-Sanctuary
• worked with School Strike 4 Climate New Zealand where he organised his local climate strike in March 2023
• was included in RNZ's: Climate strikes: Thousands march around New Zealand to demand action
• was a panelist for
  Save the Children New Zealand's youth panel that interviewed Climate Change Minister James Shaw ahead of COP27
• involved with the 'Streets for People' project lead by Tasman District Council, in which he "provided input for the Richmond Streets for People Project". The project has received $2.4 million in Government funding and support to re-design several local streets, to make it safer for pedestrians and cyclists
• was a panelist at the 'MILKED' Screening Nelson 2023, a screening of a documentary that exposes New Zealand's agricultural industry

These achievements appear to be rather local. Perhaps one of them passes the notability criteria? If not, is there some other point to make?

Many thanks. Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 05:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(The author came to the wikipedia irc live chat today requesting assistance, and I am keen to contribute to the article if this is considered useful. I have no connection with either article subject or the author etc.) Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 05:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to:

WP:BASIC, my view is that reference 1 (from an independent and reliable source, and containing significant coverage), together with the mentions in multiple other independent sources cited in the article is sufficient to meet the notability criteria...Marshelec (talk) 06:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks @Gryllida & @Marshelec, I assure you that this is not an autobiography, I saw a post about Nate on facebook one day and did a bit of research to discover that this young man is doing some cool things. I live in Northland (other side of the country) but have seen his work with Forest & Bird on their website. As mentioned I did some digging and found out more about him, and I think this chap is a notable figure and should get a Wikipedia page, thus why I am creating one! I would really appreciate some help getting this page over the line, if you are able to help do so? Cheers. Maxclayman (talk) 06:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maxclayman, the date of birth is unreferenced. Where did you find that? Schwede66 08:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And then we've got the strange case of Wikitia.com article. That bio is obviously a copy but it has the full DOB, and not just the year. The full DOB is not in the WP article history. Hm. Schwede66 08:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up that I've nominated the three photos uploaded by Maxclayman, taken by two different photographers (one of whom I know), for deletion. Schwede66 08:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I've asked my photographer mate. He's happy to release the photo. I've put him in touch with the VRT via c:Commons:Email_templates. Schwede66 09:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated mate Maxclayman (talk) 09:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reached out to him and asked, should I delete it if theres no reference? Maxclayman (talk) 08:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V is key. A reference for the date of birth for a living person is a must. If there isn't a solid reference, it will have to go. Schwede66 08:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Sweet, does that look better? Maxclayman (talk) 09:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It will be possible to use Template:Birth based on age as of date to generate a year of birth as 2007/2008, based on the statement that he is aged 14 as at 8 September 2022 given in referene (1). Marshelec (talk) 09:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes true! I just assumed it would be 2008, but will change thank you!! Maxclayman (talk) 09:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:HealthPost Nature Trust

User:Maxclayman has also created Draft:HealthPost Nature Trust. For some reason it does not appear in the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Article alerts#AFC, so it may be slipping under the radar. In the course of doing a few tweaks to the draft I wondered whether it would be best merged with Wharariki Ecosanctuary. I didn't give it a lot of thought, so not sure whether the draft should be merged into the existing article, or whether HealthPost Nature Trust should be the title of the resulting article, or whether merging is a good idea at all. Just throwing this thought out for consideration. Nurg (talk) 08:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded with comments at Draft:HealthPost Nature Trust.

Marshelec (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I shall leave some comments on the draft's talk page. Schwede66 01:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This virtual meetup will be held Sunday 25th June from noon onwards. All are welcome and the link can be found in the agenda. See you there! Wikipedia:Meetup/Aotearoa New Zealand Online/38 Ambrosia10 (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Proposal: Reclassification of Current & Future-Classes as time parameter, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. This WikiProject received this message because it currently uses "Current" and/or "Future" class(es). There is a proposal to split these two article "classes" into a new parameter "time", in order to standardise article-rating across Wikipedia (per RfC), while also allowing simultaneous usage of quality criteria and time for interest projects. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 06:43, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find the detail of this proposal hard to follow (maybe I'll get to grips with it), but at this point I intend to support it in principle anyway. I have always found the "Future" class odd, as it is not actually a measure of quality. At present

Wikipedia:WPNZ has 3 articles in the "Future" class: 2023 New Zealand general election is really a C class article now – sure it is going to change significantly during the rest of the year, but so what; 2024 Formula Regional Oceania Championship is Start class and is marked so by the other relevant project, which is perfectly fine; 54th New Zealand Parliament is actually Stub class and will remain so for some time for obvious reasons. We don't need a Future class just to indicate that an article is going to fill out in future, and may then rise to a higher class – it just serves to stymie making an assessment of how it is now. Even if I had (or develop) minor reservations about the proposal, I would see if I could put them aside if this proposal is going to facilitate global quality assessments of each article, which is going to reduce the work of making assessments, and remove inconsistent assessments of an article between projects. Nurg (talk) 06:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Since Main South Line/line could refer to the

Don’t worry about the broken wikilinks, I’ll use AutoWikiBrowser/AWB to semi-automatically update the links. Fork99 (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surely both Main South Line and Main Southern Line would be fine with hatnotes, per

WP:SMALLDETAILS? I mean, if we have Ice Cube and Ice cube... Turnagra (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

What about Main North Line (disambiguation) then? Should they follow the style of the southern lines instead? Fork99 (talk) 21:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it's just the Main North Line and Main Northern Line then I'd say so, there's no need to diambiguate both of them and have a separate disambiguation page. Turnagra (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Turnagra: Thanks for your input, I will also ask the Australian Transport WikiProject for their opinions too. Fork99 (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I’ll try to ask the NZR WikiProject, hopefully someone there responds. Fork99 (talk) 21:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC) (edited by Fork99, 21:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Oh I just double checked, both articles are called “Main North”, so possibly that disambiguation is warranted? Fork99 (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Never mind, the article names/disambiguation in the name can probably stay for clarity. Fork99 (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all! I've found a few websites that are wonderful for researching sculptures in NZ. These are great for adding to Wikidata, since sculpture photography isn't a copyright issue, and can be freely photographed and added to Wiki Commons.

• sculpturemap.nz: pretty good detail in the listings, but their search function is somewhat broken.
• outdoorart.nz: very comprehensive listings, but no information about the artworks (just titles and photos).
• aucklandpublicart.com: amazing detail and searchability (you can even break down searches if you're looking specifically for women artists and Maaori artists) but it only covers art owned by Auckland Council.

Some of these are fascinating – some sculptures are extremely well photographed, while others look too industrial or functional for people to think to take photos. --Prosperosity (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Scion (Crown Research Institute)#Requested move 4 July 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 10:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Wellington physical Wiki meetup 8 July 2023

Just letting folk know that the Wellington Wiki meetup will be held at 10am on the National Library on 8 July 2023. The agenda can be found here Wikipedia:Meetup/Wellington/Meetup 8 July 2023. We will be meeting on Floor One, National Library, corner Molesworth and Aitken Streets, Wellington as the He Matapihi Molesworth Library has been closed. Hope to see folk there! Ambrosia10 (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata location clean-up project update

A quick update for my Wikidata location clean-up project, where I've been reviewing geocoordinate data for features in New Zealand (removing double-ups and putting features in the right places). Today I finished reviewing the Northland Region, meaning these are the areas which have been checked:

• Rangitāhua / Kermadec Islands
• Manawatāwhi / Three Kings Islands
• Northland Region
• Auckland Region
• Waikato Region as far south as Hamilton
  / -37.8 degrees south.
• Tauranga, Katikati, Waihi Beach
• Wellington, Lower Hutt, Upper Hutt and Porirua
• Christchurch

All locations in these areas should be in the right places, and there should only be one Wikidata item / article per feature. To date I've deleted 574 Cebuano Wikipedia articles on duplicate places, and probably merged over 1,000 Wikidata items. This should mean that if you need to do anything with WikiShootMe or Wikidata locations for these areas, things will be a whole lot easier!

I'll probably take a break for a bit, and start back up on the Waikato Region sometime later this year. If anyone has any requests for areas that you'd like to be checked over (or want some pointers for how to fix up geolocation data), feel free to message and I'll be happy to help. --Prosperosity (talk) 04:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great work thanks and much needed. I'd like to suggest Manawatū-Whanganui as I've come across a few Wikidata item duplicates and geolocation anomalies in relation to places in the Tongariro Power Scheme: Poutu Dam, Poutu Stream, Moawhango-iti, Moawhango River, Moawhango West River, Mangaio and 4 Mangaio Streams.--Gertrude206 (talk) 08:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gertrude206: Are you mostly looking at waterways? The Manawatū-Whanganui region is enormous, but if I'm just focusing on waterways it'd be faster. --Prosperosity (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gertrude206: I've fixed up most of the major streams and rivers in the Manawatū-Whanganui area, and everything on your list. Let me know if you come across any more and I'll be happy to do some fixes. --Prosperosity (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Prosperosity Thanks heaps. That'll make uploading photos to Commons much much easier. It was mostly waterways I was interested in. Gertrude206 (talk) 04:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WPNZ "Other" class

In the WikiProject New Zealand article assessment table there is a class near the bottom labelled "Other", which contains draft articles. I see that Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Assessment has a class labelled "Draft". Can the WPNZ "Other" be changed to "Draft"? I have no idea where this would be done. Nurg (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian-at-Large project 2023–24

In 2023–24, Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand Inc plans to fund a Wikipedian-at-Large (WPAL) project. This will be a nominal 6-month paid assignment, commencing by 1 March 2024 at the latest. A WPAL project is a variation of the

Wikipedian in Residence

concept. It is not necessarily tied to one or more institutions, and is largely self-directed. The first Wikipedian-at-Large project was undertaken over 2018–19, and proved highly effective at increasing the public awareness of Wikimedia projects and recruiting new editors.

We have prepared a request for proposal (RFP), seeking responses from people interested in undertaking this project. The RFP is high level, because we are open to a diverse range of possibilities for projects that will help deliver the objectives of WANZ. We anticipate holding a funding meeting in mid-August, where anyone interested in making a proposal can meet individually with the committee to discuss their ideas, and obtain feedback. The closing date for RFP submissions is 15 September 2023. Requests to attend a funding meeting, and final proposals should be sent to: secretary[@]wikimedia.nz. Please promote this opportunity to anyone who you think might possibly be interested.

The RFP document link is posted on the meta page: m:Wikimedia_Aotearoa_New_Zealand#Wikipedian-at-Large_(WPAL)_project. Marshelec (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A new GA reviewer for Matiu / Somes Island article

Can someone please volunteer to undertake a GA review of the article Matiu / Somes Island ? Several Wellington Wikipedians have collaborated on major improvements to this article, as a group project. The article was nominated for GA, and a review commenced in May. However, the review has stalled, and the original reviewer has become inactive. It will re-appear in the general queue waiting for a reviewer, but perhaps someone associated with New Zealand will be interested ? Marshelec (talk) 03:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IUCN Category for Marine Reserves?

I'm about to slowly work through some minor upgrades to the marine reserve articles, with one of the things I've been wanting to add is the designation banner of the relevant

IUCN protected area category along the top of the infobox (like how the national parks all list that they're IUCN category too, see Paparoa National Park). The problem is, I'm not entirely sure which category the marine reserves fall under. Evidently the IUCN have whole guidelines on how to apply it to marine protected areas, but I'm not versed enough in the protections for our ones to determine it (though I suspect it's IUCN category II). Does anyone have any ideas or input as to what they reckon the best category would be? Turnagra (talk) 07:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

You can check the category of any particular reserve on IUCN's Protected Planet database, but a quick Wikidata query seems to indicate New Zealand's marine reserves are IUCN Category Ia: Strict Nature Reserve. --Canley (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great website, thanks for sharing that one. Interesting, I thought that the Ia would prohibit a lot of the tourism activities which by my read are allowed to take place. Happy to go with that though, thank you! Turnagra (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Papers Past changes planned

New functionality and new menus are evidently going to be introduced to Papers Past, the archive of NZ newspapers. The National Library is inviting input through a card sort exercise. See the link near the top of https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/ for giving input. Nurg (talk) 10:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Text correction is on its way. Finally. Schwede66 21:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcoming new users

For welcoming users who have contributed to New Zealand articles, add {{subst:welcome-nz}} ~~~~ to the user's talk page. It will produce the welcome note shown at Template:Welcome-nz (that is, the part above the headings). You can also add this template to your Twinkle setup and there are instructions on that template how to do that. You may be aware that we used Afghan biscuits as our official food item but that was changed to Louise cake. The latter is currently a redirect and is in need of a standalone article. Schwede66 21:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is brilliant. Thanks team! (and TIL that Louise cakes are a New Zealand thing). Chocmilk03 (talk) 23:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Louise cake is now a stub. Just a bit more oomph and it'll be a fine article! Schwede66 00:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New register of NZ 20th century art

Website https://publicart.nz/

Story on Scoop https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/CU2307/S00169/new-zealands-first-national-register-of-20th-century-public-artworks-goes-live.htm Gertrude206 (talk) 09:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful, I've been adding Auckland sculptures to Wikidata thanks to this site! --Prosperosity (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Backlog drive, August 2023

If folks are interested in nominating their NZ articles for Good Article status, then maybe sneak them in before the

2023 Good Article Backlog Drive starts in August. It's also a great opportunity to contribute if you feel up for conducting GA reviews, too. — Jon (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Is there anyone willing to do a peer review or quick look at some articles to facilitate that? There are a couple I'd be keen to nominate but I'm not sure how much more work they need before they're at a point they could be nominated. Turnagra (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Schwede66 01:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Schwede – I'm considering Wharepapa / Arthur Range and the 1886 eruption of Mount Tarawera, but I'm not sure what more they need before they're at the level to be nominated. Turnagra (talk) 03:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Turnagra: I have just read 1886 eruption of Mount Tarawera. A most interesting read. I recommend you submit a GA nomination for this article. It is ready. Marshelec (talk) 04:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A minor issue that I would raise about

MOS:LEAD. Another is that it would be best to use abbr=ON in the convert templates, but that may be just a personal preference. Marshelec (talk) 04:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you! And yeah, I seem to recall second guessing that at the time but that it was copied from another volcanic eruption article with a higher quality rating. Having gone and looked round, though, they all appear to follow

MOS:LEAD so I'll make those changes before nominating it! Turnagra (talk) 10:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I shall reply on the talk page of Wharepapa / Arthur Range. Schwede66 04:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Table edit

I really don't know my way around the visual editor but I assume that it's got powerful gadgets. Can it delete a table column? If so, could somebody please nuke the column Portrait from the Labour Party list at Party lists in the 2023 New Zealand general election? Any party can have those images if they provide us with a full set of 2023 candidate photos as per this discussion. Schwede66 01:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't figure out the visual editor, but was able to do it fairly quickly using excel and notepad++ so should be all sorted now. Turnagra (talk) 01:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Thank you. Would still like to hear if the visual editor can do something like that. Schwede66 02:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BLP request

Feedback request for Talk:Mick Watson#Views on Immigration section removal.-gadfium 06:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Credibility bot

As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to

WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I've responded to this message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red.--Ipigott (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to discussion

I'd like to invite anyone here to contribute to a talk page discussion about an allegedly Māori version of a team name being a hoax or not. I was given the idea/suggestion to come here after asking at the tea house on ways to get the discussion going (as there has not been a reply to my discussion in the >1 month it's been up).

Here is a link to the discussion, further details included inside- although it's pretty mostly just me not finding evidence that the name is real: Talk:Crusaders_(rugby_union)#Maori_name

Thank you in advance for any contribution. – 2804:F14:80A4:9701:1D6:F010:8C78:AF6D (talk) 05:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tapu te Ranga Marae

Posting here to try and get a bit of a wider audience – does anyone happen to have any photos of Tapu Te Ranga Marae from before its destruction? It seems a shame that the only photos we have so far of such an incredible building are from after it was destroyed. Turnagra (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Turnagra: On DigitalNZ, I found multiple images from the WCC archives, and they have a CC-BY licence :). See: [3]. Marshelec (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There were uncategorised photos on Commons. I have categorised them now. Commons:Category:Tapu Te Ranga Marae. Nurg (talk) 03:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic, thanks both! I keep forgetting that DigitalNZ is a thing, it's such a useful source. Turnagra (talk) 08:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian-at-Large project 2023–24 – call for proposals

This is a reminder of the call for proposals to undertake a Wikipedian-at-Large (WPAL) project in 2023–24. A WPAL project is a variation of the

Wikipedian in Residence

concept. It is not necessarily tied to one or more institutions, and is largely self-directed. The first Wikipedian-at-Large project was undertaken over 2018–19, and proved highly effective at increasing the public awareness of Wikimedia projects and recruiting new editors. This will be a nominal 6-month assignment, with compensation and expenses funded via a grant from WANZ, commencing by 1 March 2024 at the latest.

We have prepared a request for proposal (RFP), seeking responses from people interested in undertaking this project. The RFP is high level, because we are open to a diverse range of possibilities for projects that will help deliver the objectives of WANZ. Anyone interested in making a proposal can meet individually with members of the committee to discuss their ideas, and obtain feedback, before drafting their proposal. The closing date for RFP submissions is 15 September 2023. Requests to attend a funding meeting, and final proposals should be sent to: secretary[@]wikimedia.nz. Please promote this opportunity to anyone who you think might possibly be interested.

The RFP document link is posted on the meta page: m:Wikimedia_Aotearoa_New_Zealand#Wikipedian-at-Large_(WPAL)_project.__ Marshelec (talk) 22:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Wikimedia Laureate award – Siobhan Leachman

Siobhan Leachman was interviewed on

RNZ last night about receiving the 2023 Wikimedia Laureate award at Wikimania 2023. Listen to the interview here: [4]. Congratulations to Siobhan. Marshelec (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

The 2023 Wikimedian of the Year Winners citations are here: [5]. Marshelec (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Aotearoa NZ – national online meetup this Sunday

Our next national online meetup is this coming Sunday 20 August, starting at 12:00 midday. All are welcome to take part. The event page for Sunday is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Aotearoa_New_Zealand_Online/40 . Marshelec (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania 2023 - presentations by New Zealand Wikipedians

Here are links to videos of presentations given by New Zealand Wikipedians at Wikimania 2023:

• A Nation's Dissertations: The New Zealand Thesis Project, by Tamsin Braisher

• see also Wikipedia:GLAM/NZThesisProject

• Wikipedia and the Aotearoa NZ History Curriculum, by James Taylor
• The whole GLAM package: a workflow for turning the richness of GLAM knowledge and collections into great wiki contributions, by Lucy Schrader and Heidi Meudt, Te Papa.

• See also their process manual: Wikipedia:GLAM/Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa/The whole GLAM package

• Pasifika group performance on the main stage. The performance is just under 30 minutes long. It has dance, spoken word and satire and is a performance response to Wikipedia by Kasi Valu, Sophia Coghini, Hibiscus Tupua Wilson and Brayden Creswell.

• Also of interest to many New Zealand Wikipedians is this well-received presentation from Canley. Five years ago, bots run from the Cebuano Wikipedia created millions of articles on several Wikipedia language editions and corresponding Wikidata items, resulting in thousands of duplicated Wikidata items for geographic places. The presentation by Canley features progress towards an automated solution, using New Zealand data. See: Duplicating Everywhere All at Once

Marshelec (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Pasifika performance was so wonderful! It looks like Wikimania was a great time. --Prosperosity (talk) 04:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Competing statements about usage rights

Kia ora team, looking to get a bit of guidance on something. GNS have a batymetric map of Lake Rotomahana which I'm keen to adapt for use on the article. The file itself has a CC-BY-SA licence on it, which in my mind means that I'm able to do what I'm hoping, but the GNS store terms of use are a lot more restrictive than that particular licence. What's the best course of action here, am I allowed to use this for the article? Turnagra (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Personally, I feel that the CC-BY-SA license supersedes their website terms and conditions (which isn't an explicit license). They had every chance to select a non-derivs CC license, or no CC license at all, and instead explicitly chose the CC-BY-SA license. Could you get in contact with GNS to double-check? --Prosperosity (talk) 23:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - contacting them is my next step for sure, I just wanted to check to see if anyone had a quick and easy answer before reaching out to them! Turnagra (talk) 04:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Māui (mythology)#Requested move 13 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Māui (mythology)#Requested move 13 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —Usernamekiran_(AWB) (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Fleming

I'm wondering if anyone from this WikiProject can find any reliable sources that might help verify Neil Fleming died in 2022. The article just gives the unsourced year of his death, but says nothing more about. A non-free photo was uploaded for use in the article that also states Fleming is dead, but there's nothing provided on the file's page to support such a claim. I did find a Legacy.com obituary here which seems for the same person, but it's not usually the kind of thing that would be considered a reliable source. I also found this which might be OK to cite, but perhaps one of New Zealand's newspapers published something as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found something in the Friends of the Christchurch Botanic Gardens Newsletter – again not really ideal on its own, but it does confirm the details in the Legacy obituary: died on 16 June 2022, married to Faye, etc. Also his Library of Congress record confirms the 1939 birth date and middle name Donald. --Canley (talk) 11:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that Canley. Another editor (perhaps after seeing this post?) found an obituary for Fleming in The Press and also did some other cleanup. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]