Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 4

This page is an current main page .

The message given out by a large body of articles existing with clearly FALSE information is confusing at best and insulting at worst. Search 1926 in new zealand on google.com and you get #1 in 4.8Million pages. I simply dont understand how such a situation is allowed to continue, when standing beside the historical behaviour I have seen in wikipedia, although I must acknowledge that its been much improved in the last few months. I have stood up long and loud to support the allowing of such articles to exist for a reasonable period, in order to grow and mature into something great. I never asked for an article full of BAD and simply wrong information to be allowed to exist, I dont believe it should. I think that there is a difference between allowing un-verifiable content, that can be taken on good faith for an intial period, and allowing content that is simply an 80th reproduction of a template moved back 80 years by changing the name of the article. Please dont misunderstand my attitude here; I believe in boldness and tolerance, with some discipline, but also balance and fairness of rules or treatment for all contributors. I'm just bewildered by the FACT that these articles still exist, mostly untouched, since the 2nd of April, compared with the treatment I have witnessed around that era. 1926 is completely untouched, how can that be? I'm not embarrased by it, as some put it a couple of months back, but i do see that it makes us a laughable group, for anyone that stumbles on them. I was called a vandal when i placed my own name and birth date on 1951 in New Zealand as a tongue in cheek method of flagging this issue [1]. And that was entirely verifiable so what is going on here? I think its quite in-sensitive to say that the recently deceased head of the Greens party was head in 1926 and probably in most of the others as well. A very high percentage of the page is simply wrong, I mentioned Triple J FM radio and TV as two outrageous examples months back, and little change has taken place. (Triple J is an AUSTRALIAN fm station starting in 1970's 50 years after 1926 and several years ahead of NZ fm radio began. Likewise we didnt get TV for more than 30 years after that article, and those political parties were mostly non-existent. The sport is full of errooneous content. So how about it, what is to be done? Ive been exceedingly fair and patient. I believe its now its own testament to what it is. If I went and made a 100 pages copied from this template about a sovereign state such as Vanuatu, I'm sure you would all be calling for a fix by now, and not waiting nearly 4 months. This is exactly the kind of stuff the mainstream media feed on, and its the worst case i know of in wikipedia history. Imagine if someone was to print these all out and hang them on the walls of the meetup, so that TV3 and John Campbell could mock us. Pity I cant be there, but maybe I'll see it on Television in New Zealand. Here is a sample of the mess, i removed most of the true bits to save space here:

The TBDth New Zealand Parliament continued. Government was a coalition between

, with , both of whom as their leader as a minister outside of Cabinet.

• Speaker of the House - TBD
• Prime Minister - TBD
• Deputy Prime Minister - TBD (Labour)
• Minister of Finance - TBD (Labour)
• Minister of Foreign Affairs - TBD (Labour)

Non-Labour Ministers

TBD

• Jim Anderton (Progressives) (within Cabinet)
• Winston Peters (New Zealand First) - Minister of Foreign Affairs, (outside of Cabinet)

• National - TBD (Leader of the Opposition)
• Greens - Jeanette Fitzsimons and Rod Donald
• Act - TBD
• New Zealand First - TBD
• United Future
  - TBD
• Māori Party
  - TBD
• Labour - TBD
• Progressives
  - TBD
• United Future
  - TBD

Category:2002

• See also Current events in Australia and New Zealand

Triple J Hottest 100, 1926 , New Zealand Top 50 Albums of 1926 , Tui award winners 1926 , ARIA Music Awards of 1926 ,

See:

See:

Chappell-Hadlee Trophy , Cricket World Cup

• Gold: New Zealand Open , Check Category:New Zealand golfers in overseas tourniments.
• Rugby league New Zealand Warriors , Bartercard Cup , New Zealand national rugby league team , Rugby League World Cup
• Netball:
  Netball World Championships
• Soccer:
  New Zealand national soccer team , Chatham Cup
  ,
• Basketball:
  Tall Blacks , New Zealand Breakers
• 2 January
  : Somebody, description

moza 15:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. This is an embarassing blot on Wiki. How should it be handled? Ask Simon to fix? Moriori 22:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason for this embarrassment is that these pages, from 1901-2006, were created via a template. There is a call to make the years in New Zealand articles a NZ collaboration of the fortnight, since at the moment most of them are like that. As it is, we're trying to fix them all as quickly as possible by hand. Any help that can be given is much appreciated. Grutness...wha? 00:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I see. Creating from templates is not a good idea then. A collaboration sounds fine. Moriori 02:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Teh article we're all created by template and I have been pretty busy for the last few months so I have not had much time to tidy most of them. The ones since 1950 have been worked on a little though. I believe this is about the 4th time Moz has compalined (always about a different year) but I guess he is too busy to do any work either. How do people feel about creating a todo list somewhere so people with a bit of time on their hands have some places to start? Perhaps Category talk:Years in New Zealand might be a good spot? - SimonLyall 04:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd also put something about it on Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand, which lists articles that need creating/extra work. It might even be worth adding it to the template on things to do at Portal:New Zealand. Grutness...wha? 05:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added a section at Wikipedia:WikiProject_New_Zealand#Year_in_New_Zealand and put a few things in. - SimonLyall 10:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The truth is that I have been exceedingly busy editing articles, both creating and adding to stuff that I see as valuable to enzed history, my record is available to all. I just dont want anymore emotion and undoing of good work, maybe that was an intiation process or something, the upside is that I am careful to make articles above afd vulnerability these days. I dont think the level of abuse was necessary at the time, and I dont accept any excuse for such a new blight existing here in that context. The self-appointed police should at the very least behave according to the rules expoused while policing. I see too much talk and too little action, a curious inversion of the older behaviour. If I was a vandal and all the things that I have been called I would have deleted those pages long ago, or set in motion the very same processes that are used to hinder any unwanted activity here. I was reported in a newspaper with certified readership exceeding 1 million (of the section reporting me), The Sydney Morning Herald, in 1984. I do have the verification required. There are other options for editors to take rather than deletion for what appears to be wrong. I witnessed a horrible deletion feed fest about myself, in the name of what's right. So I just expect the same rules applied here for all clear instances of massive wrong-doing. I think its easily understandable why I'm reticent to fix those pages. In fact my ultimate self control given the extreme abuse is testament to my vision that this is all bigger than us as individuals. I wonder how come those pages dont seem to have any edits though, even bots, when there are obvious spelling errors, and every page i have on my watch (405) seems to get visited routinely for something or other. Finally, how come 24 hours later, after flagging yet again, a clear case on INSENSITIVITY, a deceased leader of the Greens party still exists on those pages, along with all the other LIES? its just simply wrong, and insulting given the editors 'busy-ness' but time to run around policing lots of other articles and editors. The apparent lack of remorse is taken into account by me. moza 06:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

1923 in New Zealand is an example of what can be done in a couple of hours from Wikipedia sources alone. dramatic 12:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

1907 in New Zealand is probably a better example (says he) because it has been taken further, but especially as the limiting template has not been rigidly adhered to. I think a template on every XXXX in New Zealand page should point to 1907 in New Zealand as an example. What do others think? Moriori 21:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

And I got 1900 in New Zealand up and running in a couple of hours using WP, the online national bibliography and a couple of reference books. It is possible, it's just that doing 100 of them in one go is a hell of a chore. We should have a list of all 100 articles somwhere, and tick them off once they get to a minimum passable stage (i.e., no mention of the Tall Blacks and the United Future party on the 1910 article, etc). Grutness...wha? 05:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I know this is a sensitive topic, and I want to help as much as possible. But as soon as someone (about a month ago) mentioned 1907 in NZ, my mind went straight to the Tohunga Suppression Act. So I've added it to this page - the one and only of the years that people seem to be happy with. Sorry about that, but as penance, I will seek and work on other pages. I am concerned though, that visually, I am not happy with my work and wonder if there is someone more skillful out there that could fix it for us? Oh, BTW, have we got a list of these years that haven't been fixed? Cheers L-Bit 10:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think that its a case of extreme IN-sensitivity, how do you think the next of kin feel about the deceased Rod Donald being mis-named on up to a hundred articles as co-leader of a NZ political party? its scandalous, and the failure of ANYONE doing ANYTHING about it renders any further discussion and/or opinion completely worthless. I see interminable bickering over incredible trivia and yet you all allow this to continue without significant or meaningful discussion and almost no action. A few have shown the way, but less have followed. Does that mean I can go and create a hundred lying articles and have them up for six months? I dont think so. rude? I think its disgusting and utterly shameless, and we are all tarred with the same brush.moza 15:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Moza, the time you've spent complaining about this might be better spent helping to fix the articles. You don't seem to have edited any of them since 1 May. It doesn't take very long to go through the articles and just delete the inaccurate bits. It would be even better to put in more accurate content, but that does take longer. I've been doing a bit of both.-gadfium 23:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The wonderful thing about this space is that the paradox of life is supported; you can be simultaneously right AND wrong. It all has to do with set and setting, your personal angle of view. You are quite correct at a technical level, I could have fixed them all myself. I chose to create and add to other articles though, and continue to repair and improve my own messy trail. The truth is that I advocate inclusionism and additive, positive process, and I believe that deletions and removals should come from the editor who adds the content, after discussion. That is especially important when there is a dispute, and the histories of wiki contain vast negative dispute content if you really want to indulge. I see you have been very active with those pages, and I thank you, I dont think any reasonable person would think i should touch them after being horribly abused for doing so back when they were created, in an effort to bring about the changes now taking place, how many months later? I have tried to understand the collective reticence to edit those pages, and it comes down to either cant be bothered or same as me, prior bad experience, continued to this day. So there remain many un-answered questions. Whatever, I have appointed myself the auditor, and here is my audit page, for anyone to edit at anytime.New_Zealand_Wiki_cleanup.moza 04:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

There is an old satire of this here;

"A 15 year old Frederick Vincent Moss had a photograph taken for his passport in England in 1927. Later that year he arrived in New Zealand as a 'passage supported' emigration plan passenger on a ship, with his mother, Gertrude Josephine Moss, and two brothers, Bernard Harry Moss and Brian Moss. Even later his sister, Hermia Moss, travelled to New Zealand. The photo therefore shows a 1927 picture on TV. It must be a retro science fiction prediction...." I resisted the extreme urge to place that on the article, and be called a vandal again, but that had no effect either, ok over to you guys.moza 15:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

A mention of Wikipedia as it relates to Te Ara in the press: Te Ara can learn from Wiki. Boy, I wish some of that content could be transferred over to WP, it sounds like a fine resource. Ziggurat 23:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Talking of NZ press coverage of WP< I forgot to mention last month that when the The Catlins article got on the front page, it was pre-announced in the Otago Daily Times (there are advantages to being a part time journalist ;) Grutness...wha? 01:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone actually asked them whether they'd be willing to let us use their material? If we could even just get the photos then that would be quite something. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 04:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

A big ups to Dramatic for fixxing this article, cool and good on ya mate.. If you can tell us how long that took and we multiply it by about 80x we can derive the approximate estimate of how long the entire project will take?moza 04:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If you search on the NZHistory.net.nz site , (which is produced by the History Group of the New Zealand Ministry for Culture and Heritage.) you will see that wikipedia articles are linked to the site Brian | (Talk) 04:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, does anyone watching this noticeboard use one of those bot things? If so, I really good task would be to go through and change all uses of "Maori" to "Māori". Just putting it out there. --Midnighttonight 10:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you can use

the AutoWikiBrowser for that. Brian | (Talk)

22:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Cheers Brian for doing those. Another valued contribution to Wikipedia by you. --Midnighttonight 05:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The Auckland meetup will be happening this weekend, At Noon Sunday in Ellerslie see: Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland for details - SimonLyall 02:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I have posted an draft meeting report (with a photo!). Please update as reuired (do I have to tell people here to do that?) and people who attended might want to add their thoughts as well in this section - SimonLyall 08:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it was fun; sorry I couldn't come! Ziggurat 21:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does look like it was fun, and looks as though it was remarkably well organised and recorded. I am also sorry I couldn't come. Next time, I will as I will have me licence! Will it be this side of christmas? L-Bit 09:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

While adding DoBs to 198x in NZ articles I noticed that Roger Federer is listed as being New Zealand International Sportsperson of the Year 2005 - has anyone heard of this award? It was added to the article here. Ziggurat 21:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say it is bullsh*t vandalism. I've never heard of the award at all. A quick google search doesn't come up with anything either. --Midnighttonight 22:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I couldn't find anything either. Nevertheless, I've asked for a source at the user's page.Ziggurat 22:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The user has pointed me to [2]. Cheers, Ziggurat 22:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

That is not the New Zealand Sports Awards, but the Freedom Air People’s Choice Sports Awards, so that should be listed, not New Zealand Sports Awards which are run by the Halberg Trust [3] --Midnighttonight 03:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC).

Our Treaty of Waitangi article looks impressive. But, although it mentions James Busby, William Hobson, Henry Williams, Dr Hocken, Baron Cooke and even Don Brash, the only Māori mentioned is Hone Heke. Furthermore, opposition to the treaty at the time is dealt with by a mere five words, namely "Several chiefs declined to sign". Anyone agree it's a little unbalanced? Moriori 23:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

unfortunately its quite expected, but we can change it, I'm often disapointed with the lack of balance in such articles, and even more disapointed with some of the attitudes that come out in the discussions. Dual naming is a case in point, look at Rakiura for instance.moza 01:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree entirely on the name change thing. Someone's redirected

Aoraki/Mt Cook to plain old Mt Cook without understanding that the former is the official name. I'd change it back but I haven't worked out how. --Tirana

22:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Moriori 23:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The page history and discussion now seems to have been left at

WP:CUTPASTE, this is a Very Bad Thing. Can an admin fix this, please? (The page is also still listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves.) -- Avenue

00:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Moriori, and apologies for my contribution to the mess to everyone else. Hopefully the Requested Moves people can help out. --Tirana 02:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Enough talk, lets check that its fixed. New_Zealand_Wiki_cleanup.moza 04:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

can someone please help move it to the namespace, whatever that is,moza 04:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. This is a duplicate of Wikipedia:WikiProject_New_Zealand#Year in New Zealand . I have copied the content from it (please add if I have missed any) and made it a redirect. Can somebody please delete the page Moz created. - SimonLyall 06:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Grutness...wha? 07:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey could someone move

. Taito is an honourific (like Rt Hon), and thus is should not be part of the article title.

Cheers,

Looks correct: See MPs Web page Had bestowed Title of Taito, paramount Chief of the Village of Manase, Savaii, Western Samoa in 1975 - SimonLyall 10:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Helen Clark is at Helen Clark, not The Right Honourable Helen Elizabeth Clark, Prime Minister of New Zealand (her full title)

I've moved it.-gadfium 01:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this is wrong. See

Talk:Phillip_Field. Nurg

13:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Rob Moodie, aka Ms Alice

Anyone know enough about Rob Moodie (yes that one), and willing to do an article on him. Currently Rob Moodie redirects to Te Mata Bridge which fell into a river. He acts for the owners. Moriori 01:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I remember reading a whole article about him recently. Perhaps in something like North and South but issues I have checked don't have it. - SimonLyall 04:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, Dominion Post had about half its front page on him (or vice versa) on 25 July. Maybe Simon had just subliminally read someone else's copy? Anyway, I'm about to fix the gap, stubbily. Robin Patterson 00:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The

08:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a set of photos from my grandfathers visit to the New_Zealand_Centennial_Exhibition that I am happy to give when i get to scanning my collection again. I see that article desperately needs help. (there are so many in that cat) has anyone knowledge of a stub/wikify list for nz? moza 11:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

We seem to have

10:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but do we have a policy on where the New Zealand bit goes? at the beginning or at the end? I see they are botting all the nature cats to reverse them to have nz at the end. I created music festivals of new zealand to have it reversed to new zealand music festivals. all the same to me but confusing to the users. if the nature stuff has gone thru world wide then i suggest we align with whatever they did.

Electricity_in_New_Zealand with Category:Electricity_in_New Zealand as a subcat of Category:New_Zealand, seems to be aligned with other practice there. see Education_in_New_Zealand and Category:Education_in_New_Zealand

.

Found a few articles.

Electricity in New Zealand. - SimonLyall

19:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Left-wing activists

An article was created last month entitled

00:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

AfD it. --219.89.236.186 00:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep - but then I am a strong inclusionist. Wait a few years and some sleepless nights, and somebody will have fleshed it out

13:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I made the following observation on Talk:Wellington, then I followed it up with a request on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps. Let me know what you think. I'm aware I might be stepping on toes, but I think we need a good base to create our local government and place location maps from. The current ones probably break copyright and look a tad less than professional (no offence, they're better than I could do!). We need some help from someone with proper mapping sofware.

I think we need a map like the one for Ipswich. The boundary files for councils are now "freely available" so we might as well get one of Wikipedia's expert map makers with the appropriate software to make us a series of maps of New Zealand we can place location dots on. I think we need:

• A plain map of New Zealand with no boundaries, for putting location dots onto
• A map of New Zealand with territorial authority boundaries
• A map of New Zealand with regional council boundaries

Ben Arnold 12:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought the map in the

Taupo District article was okay; Image:Taupo Territorial Authority.PNG at showing the regional council boundaries. (okay it only shows the North Island; and I based it on other maps on the wiki.) Brian | (Talk)

21:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

There are also other ones such as Image:Position of Nelson Region.png which can be edited to show the territorial authority boundaries Brian | (Talk) 21:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, NZ Wikipedian Vardion was heavily involved in creating GFDL maps, but he's currently out of contact. Ziggurat 21:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, the current ones (that involve a green or yellow plain map of the North Island, South Island, or whole country, and with file names starting "NZ-"), do NOT break copyright, as I drew them freehand. The whole reason I made them in a very simplified style is to minimise any distracting background, which IMO is a major problem with manuy of the maps on Wikipedia - most of them are far too cluttered. I made a standardised set of maps for towns in New Zealand, and I used exactly the same background for maps showing rivers and various other natural features. They replaced and extened on the higgledly-piggledy series of maps that were there before - FWIW, there are about 300 of them at the moment, and the number is going up fairly steadily. If you want the plain maps of these uploaded I'm pefectly happy to do that, and it would easily cover the first of the three types you list above. I know I'm biased, but I don't think that maps like Image:NZ-Balclutha.png or Image:NZ-Buller_R.png look any less professional than the Ipswich-Suffolk one you mention. Grutness...wha? 06:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Grutness maps are quite nice as well :) Brian | (Talk) 07:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Seconded, especially the non-distracting part. Perfectly good for what they are for, until somebody makes something better. But not a priority by any means.

MadMaxDog

13:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the look of Grutness' maps too. I don't care as much for Image:Taupo Territorial Authority.PNG; all the boundary gaps make it hard on my eyes. Ben, can you be specific about what you think would make the maps more "professional" looking? -- Avenue 13:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

User:dramatic and I have been fighting a battle with several anons (or possibly just one anon) and new users at Papakura over several issues:

• Whether Papakura is a city. The Papakura District Council website doesn't seem to think so.
• Whether there should be a second list of suburbs in the article.
• Whether there should be pictures of Britomart, Spaghetti junction and the Sky Tower in the article. These are all features of Central Auckland, not of Papakura.
• Whether the See Also section should contain many items with peripheral connection to Papakura.

The edit war has shown signs it might spill over into other articles, such as

article has been created; is there value in such an article?

It would be good to have a few more regular Wikipedians involved. My feeling is that the Papakura article should be semi-protected, but I won't do that myself since I'm an involved party.-gadfium 09:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll watchlist Papakura too. There's been a little recent spillover to Category:Auckland urban districts as well. The list of suburbs does duplicate some content in the articles for component cities and districts, but it might be useful as a central index for people who don't know which part of Auckland a suburb lies in. So I think it has some value. It should be renamed though (and expanded, alphabetised, ...). -- Avenue 10:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a little more trivial, but seems a similar issue. Some person from a dynamic IP (at least I assume it is the same person) has an issue with one of the photographs on Wellington Cable Car. There is room for a sensible debate on the merit of the picture, but ... --Limegreen 11:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, if

Suburbs of Auckland would be more in line with the long-standing Suburbs of Dunedin (and with the few similar overseas suburbs articles I've seen). Grutness...wha?

23:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Remove Silvia Cartwright references

I changed some references of Silvia Cartwright to Sian Elias but there are still many left. Can you help?

Also, should we change it to

10:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've updated a few more. Personally I don't like the idea of updating to Satyanand now, unless the text states that he is not yet Governor-General. -- Avenue 10:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Its easier imo if we wait until the 23rd, however if updating to Satyanand he should be labelled Governor-General-designate, I also don't think putting Sian Elias everywhere is a good idea; otherwise we would have to follow the same precedent every time the Administrator of the Government takes over (for example overseas trips etc) .

By putting like on the Monarchy page "The Monarch is represented by a Administrator of the Government, presently Sian Elias" that is completely misleading The Monarch is represented by a GG; The Chief Justice acts as Administrator of the Government in the interregnum; comments like that should say that. I also feel that on the infobox on the New Zealand article should mention the Governor-General-designate. Brian | (Talk) 19:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added a {{tl:current event}} tag to the Origin Pacific Airways article and edited the article to reflect that the airline has suspended services. Would anybody be interested in following the story and removing the current event tag when it ceases to be a current event? It's going to be a little difficult to follow the story from over here in Australia as the story isn't likely to get any coverage. If the airline announces that it is going to continue freight operations or anything like that then the article should be edited again to reflect that it isn't a defunct airline. Thanks -- Adz|talk 10:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I was a bit too hasty. The airline's website says that freigh services will continue. I have edited the article to reflect this. -- Adz|talk 10:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone knew about this prior to its creation. There are probably enough articles to sustain an Auckland portal, but I'm not sure if there will be people who would be interested in maintaining it, apart from the relatively new creator. Any comments?-gadfium 06:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Please just allow me that I have been active for quite a while in the German WikiPedia, that way I am hence no newcomer to WikiPedia. IndividualBeing 08:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Err, where's the

talk

09:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

contradicts 10:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's a problem, but it's not an insurmountable one, since many countries have separate naming guidelines. New Zealand isn't the only country which goes against those standards, as you point out. I'd suggest that the rivers guidelines include the final tag unless country naming guidelines suggest otherwise. Grutness...wha? 06:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just checked, and what you say isn't actually true.

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (landforms)#Rivers say to use parentheses for Australian and U.S. rivers, and notes that commas are used for the U.K. and New Zealand. In other words, there is no conflict. Grutness...wha?

06:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Categories for New Zealand images

I started a new Category Category:New Zealand images that does exactly what it says. Is this a good idea? And can we somehow copy the categories from commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:New_Zealand over? Onco_p53 10:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking at Category:Images by country, it seems the naming convention is "Images of ...". How do you move a category? -- Avenue 13:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Best way to go about it is to request a move at

WP:CFD; given that this is a pretty clear convention, it's speediable under criterion 4. In reply to Onco_p53 (interesting username that - literary reference?), which categories are you talking about? Do you mean the subcategories (Buildings in NZ, Trams in NZ, etc.) or do you mean the image contents of the commons category? Ziggurat

Woops, yeah move that category to the standard. I was thinking about the sub categories found on commons. Subcats will be needed, we can do it manually of course, but if there was an easy way to propagate the commons subcategories over, that would save time. My username is explained on my userpage, I have used it since 1998 when I was first learning about molecular biology. Onco_p53 21:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of any way to do it automatically, sorry. The commons is really where most of the image categorization takes place; not even Category:Images of England or Category:Images of the United States have thematic subcategories of that kind. And aha, I was thinking p53 as in page 53! Duh, p53 even has its own article. Ziggurat 21:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I've requested a speedy move of the category. If anyone's thinking of creating other NZ categories, please have a look at the relevant

naming conventions. -- Avenue

00:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

For some odd reason this rename has failed to be passed. Now what? Onco_p53 05:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The grounds given were that the images were "not OF NZ". Perhaps that's understandable, since the speedy renaming guidelines say that there must be "no room for any doubt whatsoever that the category in question is being used for the standard purpose", although the mixture of images in Category:Images_of_Australia seems similar to me. I guess this means we need to put the move proposal through the general 7-day discussion process at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. -- Avenue 11:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It's worried me for a while that the subcategories of Category:Regions of New Zealand don't conform with the official regions into which the country is divided. it's mainly my fault - I created most of these categories a year and a half ago while making a few hundred geography articles. I think, though, that it's about time these were formalised. Luckily, most of the seventeen categories won't need much work at all. Twelve will need only the slightest of tweaks if any (Category:Northland, New Zealand, Category:Waikato, Category:Hawke's Bay, Category:Taranaki, Category:Manawatu-Wanganui, Category:Wellington Region, Category:Marlborough, New Zealand, Category:West Coast, New Zealand, Category:Canterbury, New Zealand, Category:Otago, and Category:Southland, New Zealand, plus the still useful, even if not "official" Category:New Zealand outlying islands). The other five need a little more work.

I'd like to propose the following changes:

• Category:Auckland → Category:Auckland Region (name change alone so as to avoid confusion with the city)
• Category:Bay of Plenty-East Coast→ Category:Bay of Plenty and Category: Gisborne Region
• Category:Nelson, New Zealand → Category:Nelson Region, New Zealand and Category:Tasman, New Zealand (same reasons as Auckland, plus splitting into its two regions)
• Category:Central North Island, New Zealand → merge into other categories then delete
• Category:Thames-Coromandel → merge into other categories then delete.

Unless there are any serious objections to this, I'll start the ball rolling with a CFR of the Auckland and Nelson ones, then see where to go from there. (crossposted at Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand) Grutness...wha? 07:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the general idea of moving to the official regions. I'm not sure I agree with some of the details here though. In particular, couldn't Category:Thames-Coromandel simply become a subcategory of Category:Waikato Region, rather than meeting with oblivion? I'm also a bit uncomfortable with splitting Category:Central North Island, New Zealand between the Waikato and Manawatu-Wanganui regions. Would making it as a subcategory of both regions be too messy? -- Avenue 08:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I basically came to the same conclusion as you over Category:Thames-Coromandel, and also thought that Category:Auckland doesn't need to be deleted (the urban region could do with its own category as a subcat of a new Category:Auckland Region. As to the Central NI one, it would be a bit messy, since it's not an official region, but I'm willing to be swayed either way on it - I;'d like to hear a few more opinions. The EC/BoP and Nelson/Tasman splits are definitely worthwhile, though, IMHO. Grutness...wha? 06:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly support this scheme, along with a general cleanup of references to the 12/16/17 regions/districts/authorities, which are very confusing altogether for we uninitiated topsiders. Alai 04:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to keep the Central North Island cat Brian | (Talk) 09:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Okay. Looks like we're going with all the official regions plus one that isn't official. Which will cause problems further down the track, but never mind :/ Grutness...wha? 05:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi everyone! It seems to me that although Māori King Movement as the NZ collaboration of the fortnight is already finished, we should all take advantage of what we are currently hearing/learning through the media to continue to improve the article. I have just given it a comprehensive edit, but there are large gaps in the history that still need to be filled in. Unfortunately I am only an occasional contributor and must now get back to my daily pressures, but I did want to encourage people to continue on that.

I would also like to suggest that the page be moved to "Kingitanga." What do you think?

Also, in working on Maori King Movement this morning I came across many articles about Māori historical figures without the macrons in their names. I went around and fixed Pōtatau, but there are many more. What is the policy on macrons? Are a person with a bit of training in Te Reo I have difficulty seeing a Māori word, especially a name, without the proper macrons because in my mind they are pronounced differently -- but, I realize that there are agreed-upon policies already in place. Mona-Lynn 22:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW the proper spelling is Kīngitanga. Good people like Konstable and others are gradually fixing such things. It takes time. Names in particular can be tricky tho and should only be changed on good authority. Kahuroa 23:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC).

On the subject of media sources for possible information, it sounds like there's a documentary on the life of Te Ata tonight on TV1. Grutness...wha? 06:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi there! Myself and another user are having difficulties over Ahmed Zaoui. I'm very busy with university at the moment, but I was concerned at the limited coverage in the article, and what I consider the innapropriate inclusion of the entire 'summary of allegations' (not a short document) in the article. I'm too busy to have my good faith attempts to try and include more information deleted as soon as User:Armon comes back to it. And I'm losing my cool. Could other NZ wikipedians please try and sort this out? I dont want to content/revert war with him... Tell me to get back to work! 01:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I should also note that I'm quite stressed and should be on a wikibreak. 210.86.85.138 02:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Talking of the regions of NZ, I've split out the six largest such as new stub types (see the

05:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the main reason I mentioned the rescoping of the NZ region categories (as Alai knows, but others here won't). BTW, not all of these feed into their own separate stub categories, but there are very good reasons for that, so please don't make new categories! Grutness...wha? 09:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Tomorrow (well, this afternoon and tomorrow morning for us kiwis) Image:Old saint pauls 2.jpg is going to be featured picture on the main page. That means Old Saint Paul's article may get a bit of attention. Can people add it to their watch list for the day? --Midnighttonight Remind me to do my uni work rather than procrastinate on the internet 21:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. Great pic! Ziggurat 22:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Lovely pic. Congrats! Grutness...wha? 00:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This was on my talk page with the explanation:"As you are still the only German speaking Wikipedian from New Zealand I know, I thought it was as good idea to ask you, but ...". (Am I?) Robin Patterson 01:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the German article on New Zealand is a candidate for Exzellente Artikel (comparable to featured articles in the English Wikipedia). Even though you (or any other user of the English Wikipedia) might be unfamiliar with the standards for the top articles in the German Wikipedia, I thought it might be a good idea to let a Kiwi have a look at it, before it becomes excellent. ... feel free to forward it to anyone who you think might be appropriate. Cheers --Alex 18:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What I read seems pretty good. I even learned something (that the Tasman Disctrict Council is based in Richmond, not Motueka).--Limegreen 02:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Local knowledge would help Te Raekaihau Point which needs a fair bit of work, updating re resource consent hearing, toning down or balancing the POV. Might help if some of the images disappeared too, and if refs go back in they should be at bottom of page. Moriori 23:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)