Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Move of Māori All Blacks to Maori All Blacks

This moved was performed as an uncontroversial move request (see [1]) -- can someone with a better knowledge of the Māori language tell me whether this is in fact the correct thing to have done? (pinging @Gadfium, Avenue, and Kahuroa: who may be able to help) -- Shudde talk 02:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this was an uncontroversial move, but it isn't an unreasonable one. allblacks.com, Stuff, NZ Herald and TVNZ all use the name without a macron (but I haven't checked to see if they are consistent). Te Ara does use the macron.
The article was originally at "New Zealand Maori" and covered both the rugby union and rugby league teams. Amacron was added to the article for the team name in April 2006, and it was moved to New Zealand Māori rugby league team the following month, with New Zealand Māori rugby union team created as a split. See the rugby league article for the early history.-gadfium 04:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah it's been moved around a fair bit, but this latest move was one I was unsure of. Malcolm Mulholland's book on Māori rugby uses the macron as well. – Shudde talk 04:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
@Hippo43:-gadfium 04:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I just moved it because I noticed it isn't the spelling used by the NZRU, whose team it is. In their article announcing the team being renamed, it was spelt this way, so it seemed clear to me. Apologies if it is controversial to anyone, but if it hadn't involved a redirect, I would have just moved it myself, as it seemed really straightforward. I dug around the NZRU site and couldn't find any examples with a macron. I also couldn't find examples of the old names being spelt with a macron, on old match programmes etc. Happy to be corrected if I've got this wrong somehow. --hippo43 (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
@Hippo43: -- Hey, thanks for replying. I had no doubt that it was a good faith move request, but I don't think the decision is in fact straightforward. I've done a little reading, and I it seems that the macron isn't supported by all publishing systems -- this may bias any sample of it's use at news sites etc. I'm sure you were unaware that the NZRU do in fact use the macron (although not universally, as you know). The press kit they released for the Māori All Blacks most recent tour (to North American in late-2013) uses the macron in nearly all cases (see pdf here -- this kit has some really useful information if anyone is looking for a source for the article btw). My conclusion is that there isn't any "official" preference for the macron or not, however it does look like using it is preferred where possible by the Māori Language Commission. I completely understand why you made the move request, but am now thinking it was a mistake. -- Shudde talk 08:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure about that. The press kit is interesting, but from what I've been able to find, the NZRU overwhelmingly don't use the macron. We can't infer that they would use it if their publishing systems were different somehow or conclude that there isn't any official preference. Their logo doesn't have a macron, when it easily could be included. If the NZRU spell it 'Maori All Blacks', then that's the correct name, no?
On the question of the Māori Language Commission, their preference does not override policy here - we use what reliable sources use (in this case, the body whose team it is). Second, their statement on the use of macrons refers to the Maori language, not English! In the English language Wikipedia, their preference is irrelevant. The word 'Maori' has become an English word and most often does not have a macron. I don't have an opinion either way about how it should be written. If the NZRU choose to change their spelling to include a macron, then I would support changing the article name back. --hippo43 (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Your argument seems to have changed. Your original reasoning was "correct spelling per official sources - NZRU etc" ([2] you never provided a source or evidence). Then above you said "I dug around the NZRU site and couldn't find any examples with a macron". So you've used anecdotal evidence, the problem with this is that it could easily be wrong. I've found a very recent publication by the NZRU that uses the term "Māori All Blacks" (with the macron) 39 times ("Maori All Blacks" was used twice). Then you say "We can't infer that they would use it if their publishing systems were different somehow or conclude that there isn't any official preference". Are saying that the NZRU have an official preference for not using the macron, yet used it 39 times in a publication they provided to the press less than 6 months ago? Did you have a look at the pdf? The move was controversial, and no consensus was either sought or established. The move should be reverted and then consensus should be established before deciding to remove the macron. -- Shudde talk 09:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you're making a controversy out of nothing. I haven't tried to make an argument, I've just explained why it is pretty obvious the NZRU's name for the team is spelt without a macron. I didn't seek consensus or list a bunch of sources because it's not really controversial.
You've referred to just one press release, written by who? The chief executive of the union or one copywriter, with a preference for macrons, in their media department? We don't know. If you look closely, the team logo appears numerous times (many more than 2) in the same document, without a macron. I think we can presume that the union would get the spelling right on their logo. Also, the press release contains several errors - the team was not called the Maori All Blacks in 2010, or 1900, as it asserts - so I'm not sure how much weight it carries. This source, from around the same time, doesn't use macrons at all as far as I can tell, so what should we infer from it?
However, the main reason this is not actually controversial is that the NZRU explicitly stated that the name is 'Maori All Blacks' in this source, directly addressing the issue of the team's name, not just mentioning it in passing. This is obviously a statement of an 'official' spelling. It's not really credible that they announced the new name on their website and got the spelling wrong, and that they continue to get it wrong all over their website, and that they continue to get it wrong on the logo that is on their jersey and plastered all over every event they are involved in. --hippo43 (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I've put a formal move request on the article's talk page. Schwede66 17:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

A potential COI or impersonator perhaps,

Shanejonesmp (talk · contribs) has been created. Kiwi editors may be better to deal with issues (if there are any) arising. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 09:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

More likely an impersonator, I would expect an MP to be sufficiently educated to be able to add an edit summary and I doubt he would add his new partner as "spouse" if they weren't married. I can find nothing to confirm that Jones is divorced so assume he is still married. Best to take this to Talk:Shane Jones. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Kingston Flyer

Kingston Flyer suggests that the train is currently running, but I was in Kingston a week ago and the trains look as though they have been laid up for at least a year - covered in cobwebs, and one locomotive has the front fan of its boiler chamber off (and badly rusting). The restaurant at the station is also closed down. Unfortunately I don't have time, so is someone willing to check for news reports and update the article? dramatic (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Updated article to the position as at December 2013. Not running and on the market for sale. NealeFamily (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

New Zealand regions RM discussion

I have started a formal WP:RM discussion about the regions issue. The discussion is here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Manawatu-Wanganui Region RM discussion

The discussion mentioned above for all of the NZ regions was a bit of a bust, and it's clear from the comments there that if there is to be any change they will probably have to be approached individually. I've started a discussion regarding Manawatu-Wanganui Region here; all input/views are welcome. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Otago Region RM discussion

The M-W discussion above resulted in the page being moved. Next up: Otago Region. All inputs and views are welcome. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Waikato Region RM discussion

One in a continuing series of RM discussions for NZ regions: Talk:Waikato Region. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The suggested move to Waikato is much more problematic than the previous two above, so do discuss. Nurg (talk) 05:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Another region RM discussion

We're now on to discussing renames for the regions of Auckland, Bay of Plenty, Gisborne, Taranaki, and Wellington. Discussion is a group one, and is here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

There was consensus to change Bay of Plenty and Taranaki. The discussion of Gisborne Region has been relisted with fresh proposals: see here. There was no consensus on Auckland or Wellington for now, but they should probably be discussed individually in the future. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Mi-Sex article

Anyone who remembers the Satellite Spies band-name holy-war might get a bit of déjà vu if they check the editing history of Mi-Sex. After a bunch of edits, mostly from one editor, about half the article now appears to deal with arguments in the last few years of who owns the band name (thirty or so years after the band last had anything even remotely resembling a hit single). Page protection might help but semi-protection won't - there is an IP editor cleaning up borderline BLP violations (and whose cleaning up has itself just been reverted). I am sorely tempted to revert the article back to the last reasonably encyclopaedic version ([3] or thereabouts) but have little hope that this would achieve results and don't have time to get into a protracted debate with either of the parties. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Reverted latest edits and requested full protection. If this can't be resolved on the talk page then it may be necessary to make more severe measures. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
And he's back [4] Can somebody with more diplomatic skills than myself (that's probably everybody else here) please make contact and steer him away from the brink? Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Surely a Sock investigation would conclude that Kevin Stanton (mi-sex) is a sock of the currently indefinitely banned user Rock Attire Mi-Sex? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Probably the same user I agree (blocked not banned I think?) but I was hoping someone could politely but firmly explain COI, NLT, BLP etc. to him after the last false start. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Requested articles/New Zealand academic biographies

I have started a bit of a push to increase the depth and breadth of our coverage of academics and researchers, with diversity being a key issue. I've been trying to attract new editors on social media to write some of these, but don't let that stop you all from jumping in. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

West Coast Region requested move discussion

One in a series for the NZ regions: see here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

A related discussion on renaming the West Coast Region categories is now here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
The discussion is currently around whether it should be "in the West Coast" or "on the West Coast". Nurg (talk) 09:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Canterbury Region requested move discussion

We're starting to see some strong consensus decisions in these discussions. The next one to be discussed is Canterbury: see here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Southland Region requested move discussion

Southland Region article name being discussed here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Northland Region requested move discussion

Northland Region article name being discussed here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Korotangi Paki

Korotangi Paki is the son of the current Māori King Tuheitia Paki, and he was discharged without conviction yesterday because a conviction would likely ruin his chances of replacing his father in due course. See Anger over discharge for Maori King's son. I and a couple of other people have removed a biased summary of this from the article on Tuheitia, and I have semi-protected this article to prevent it from being added again. I have also removed a more neutral summary at Māori King Movement by Claudia, but she has reinstated it.

I'd like some feedback on whether we should be covering this on Wikipedia, and if so, in which article. Korotangi is probably not notable until such point as he is elected to the position of Māori King, and this is not a certainty as the position is not in theory heritable, although in practice it appears to be.-gadfium 06:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree the material on Korotangi Paki is not relevant to the article. It is poorly written, not even naming this person, and is speculative about his future notability. It seems to be just an attempt at a smear campaign. I'm going to remove it and it should not be included again unless there is consensus on its inclusion. BlackCab (TALK) 07:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Keep it out. Cheap attempt at guilt-by-association. Claudia's excuse for including it is that he is "the next inline" - except he isn't necessarily, nor even likely; per his father's article, his older brother Whatumoana has acted in their father's stead while he is indisposed. Incidentally, in the same day's reportage, I notice this much more serious crime: [5] which rates no mention at all here. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
This is classic WP:1E stuff, keep it out. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
If there is significant media coverage about an event that also consistently mentions Tuheitia Paki, I don't see how we could argue that it does not belong into his article. The article can't become unbalanced, of course, but Wikipedia isn't a gatekeeper for bad (family) news. Schwede66 17:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
If you feel strongly about this, you're welcome to escalate this to WP:BLP/N, but I believe I know what the answer will be. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
It's nowhere near my area of interest. I've said my piece; that's enough. Schwede66 04:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou Gadfium for drawing this discussion to my attention. Re being "next inline" -this is what the Times reported. They were talking to Tuku Morgan,the kings spokesperson at he time so Im guessing he said it. If Tuku says it then its going to happen. The new apology makes it very clear that the king does not condone Korotangi's attitudes or his behaviour. It is extremely rare for the king to speak in public or issue a statement -the last time was about 2 years ago when he defended his right as Maori king to a large expense account,extensive paid travel and a new Mercedes car, when he was under pressure to defend his expenditure in the parliament when many Tainui people are poor or unemployed. Is Wiki now only for "good news"? This is a serious issue for we Maori people,especially in the Waikato. Removing information that reflects badly on an organization is censorship. Clearly it is a significant issue if one of Nz's main daily newspapers(and the one that serves the Tainui area) devotes 95% of the front page(with 3 pictures) a on a Saturday to it.Claudia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

None of which makes it suitable for Wikipedia. Go and read WP:NOTNEWS and also the section following it on the page "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". This is nothing to do with censorship, it is everything to do with working towards a quality encyclopaedia, and the material you submit is not up to that standard. If you want a forum where you can write your own version of NZ history go and get yourself a blog. Daveosaurus (talk) 03:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Similar content has been added to Māori King Movement where it would appear to be equally irrelevant. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 01:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I have just checked and the nonsense is gone again. It should not be reinstated until it reaches a version which gains support from a consensus of editors. Daveosaurus (talk) 03:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

"on the West Coast" or "in the West Coast"

There is a proposal to rename Category:Rugby league players on the West Coast, New Zealand by club to Category:Rugby league players in the West Coast, New Zealand by club and another similar case at Categories for discussion. Nurg (talk) 11:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Most editors who have this notice board on their watchlist would also be subscribed to Article alerts. Can I suggest that category pages and templates get tagged with {{WPNZ}} on their talk pages? That way, these issues would always show up on the article alerts, as the bot searches for WPNZ. Thus, issues like these would always come to the attention of a good number of Kiwi editors without the need for special notifications like this one. I've tagged this particular category page. Schwede66 21:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Graham Reid

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to raise the idea, but does anyone feel able to write an article on the author, music critic, broadcaster and music educator Graham Reid? I'm English, and Australian-based, so I can't say his name means much to me, but just recently I've come across him quite a bit when researching for (non-NZ) music articles. From what I can see online, Reid meets the requirements regarding notability; his bio certainly seems impressive on his own website, Elsewhere. I almost feel embarrassed to list the following hits, among you locals(!), but here are some things that seem to support his standing re notability:

He's been the NZ contributor for Billboard magazine, a travel author (published by Random House), winner of a number of Qantas Media Awards … Perhaps I'm missing something, but I'm really surprised we don't already have a page for him. (Graham Reid (writer) is someone else.) I'm particularly interested in some of the music articles on Elsewhere, btw, but figure it would be good to first ensure he's established in his own right on the encyclopaedia. Any thoughts … any takers? JG66 (talk) 09:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. He is one of New Zealand's best-known music journalists (alongside Dylan Taite). Its a shame most of his older writing for the Herald isn't currently on-line.Haminoon (talk) 09:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, that's the impression I'd got – "one of New Zealand's best-known music journalists" – but can we get anything RS that says that? I don't mind getting the ball rolling with the article, if no one else will. Should the title be Graham Reid (music critic and writer), do you think? JG66 (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I'll have a look. I think Graham Reid (journalist) would be best as journalism is what he is mostly known for. Haminoon (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, as you can see from the blue link, I've made a start … JG66 (talk) 11:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

MANA or Mana Movement

I am involved in a discussion at Talk:Internet Party and MANA Movement on how this word should be capitalised. Input from other editors would be appreciated. Ground Zero | t 17:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I have proposed to rename this article at Talk:Internet_Party_and_MANA_Movement. Ground Zero | t 15:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Auckland Heritage Week

Just realised this is on again. 27 Sept - 12 October (coincides w school holidays). Heritage Festival Website: http://www.heritagefestival.co.nz/ . Anyway there's a few events that may be of interest especially if you wish to take photos or look at notes/resources. For example one year I did a tour of the baches on Rangitoto Island and another time climbed up to the top of one of the silos at Wynyard Quarter. This Engineering Heritage Walk A looks at the Tepid Baths, Auckland Electric Tramway HQ and power station site, the Sky Tower, Auckland City refuse destructor, Auckland gasworks, Auckland harbour bridge and the Viaduct lift bridge. And Walk B includes Queen St Sewer, Albert Park tunnels etc. [6]. Linnah (talk) 12:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Timespanner: History incl photos

Came across this by accident (ie from shared fb pic etc). Just found out Timespanner on FB has a blog page and some of it could be of interest to a few here. Even if iti sn't public domain it will give you an idea where to look for the photo or information you are after. Example:

Sam Lotu-Iiga possible COI editing

Hello everyone. I just want to draw people's attention to these change at Lotu-Liga's page. On the talk page for his article there are links to news articles such as this one, which detail pretty much exactly the same thing happening (ie probable COI editing). Any thoughts on how to proceed? Ballofstring (talk) 04:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the diff you have provided is particularly problematic. Obviously there have been problems with the Sam Lotu-Iiga article in the past (as described in the news article here). My advice is to keep an eye on the page, and if any COI edits do appear, then maybe state your problems on the article talk page, and add a link here to the discussion. -- Shudde talk 05:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the particular diff wasn't really that problematic. But why don't a few more editors simply watchlist that article, and if anything untoward happens, one of us will deal with it rather swiftly. Schwede66 06:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Merge Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand and this page?

I'm wondering whether we should consider merging this page and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand? At the moment both are fulfilling similar functions, so I'm wondering whether we should just bite the bullet and merge one into the other. Having a centralised page to discuss New Zealand-related topics would have obvious advantages. Thoughts? -- Shudde talk 04:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I support such a merge. The overlap was noted ten years ago.-gadfium 04:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I also think that's a good idea. I didn't realise this notice board even existed for quite a while! Ballofstring (talk) 10:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
We had a discussion a good four years ago about tidying up the two pages. The suggestion was to have the Wikiproject talk page for discussions about the WP only, and have all the discussions about articles on the noticeboard. I was just about to do it when somebody objected at the last minute and I just walked away from it. Schwede66 17:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree a merge would be good, it's not like either is high traffic. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah my understanding is that's the theoretical difference between the two pages, but in reality they're both being used for the same thing. -- Shudde talk 23:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the merge NealeFamily (talk) 03:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
@ClubOranje: As you had a dissenting opinion four years ago, I'm drawing your attention to this discussion.-gadfium 04:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Support. Neither page is particularly busy and a lot of what's currently on the other page would probably be more appropriate here anyway. Is it possible to have the other page mirror this one? (sorry I don't know the technical Wiki term for it). Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy with a merge. I wasn't aware of the Project when I created the notice board ten years ago, otherwise I wouldn't have done so. Apologies for the overlap. Nurg (talk) 09:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

No need to apologise. I think the two pages are supposed to have different functions, so no one has done anything wrong in creating/supporting two. -- Shudde talk 06:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Support. Where are you planning to have the merged page? What will happen to the other page? I refer to the fact that both pages have archives and I'd prefer those archives or current discussions in current page to disappear. Linnah (talk) 10:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

One page will be turned into a redirect. I'm not fussed which of the two is merged into the other one. An archive box for the page that's turned into a redirect can be placed in the remaining page so that's not problem. -- Shudde talk 21:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Time to do it?

There have been quite a few comments in the past week, and no one seems to object to the idea. So I may do the merge soon unless someone objects? -- Shudde talk 02:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Go for it. Moriori (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
It's done. Hopefully I haven't stuffed anything up. -- Shudde talk 04:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocking of disruptive editor

Many thanks to all those who contributed to the ANI discussion on the disruptive editor "Claudia". This person has long been a thorn in the side of editors trying to clean up and improve NZ-related articles. I've found the task of scrutinising and debating Claudia's edits excessively time-consuming and frustrating — though on the positive side it has resulted in an expansion of my library as I've tracked down copies of some books Claudia has cited in an effort to verify those citations. On rare occasions Claudia has actually added worthwhile information, though invariably in such a sloppy and careless manner it has still required other editors to follow in her trail to make those edits reach something approaching the standard expected in an encyclopedia.

Given her truculence, I doubt she'll let it rest there: on two previous occasions when she was blocked she responded with more long-winded denials of wrongdoing, further accusations of incompetence on the part of historians and other editors, and insincere promises of improvement (concluding with jolly greetings!). Hopefully no admin will weaken in the face of a similar response this time. So thanks once again. BlackCab (TALK) 00:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, it's good to see this issue resolved. An editor who refuses point blank to follow the most basic wiki guidelines is always going to be more trouble than they are worth and any "good faith" intent must be highly questionable. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 01:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
The ANI discussion. Nurg (talk) 07:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject New Zealand: NZ Open Source Awards 2014 Finalist

To the NZ Wikipedians who submitted Wikiproject New Zealand to the 2014 NZ Open Source Awards: It was a good idea. Even though it didn't win, it is listed as one of the 3 finalists in the "Open Source in Social Services" category. That is an achievement.

Congratulations for being a finalist. Linnah (talk) 10:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

That would be me. Myself and User:Ballofstring turned up to the event. User:Ballofstring also transferred commons:Category:New Zealand Open Source Awards, 2014 etc from flickr. Lots of those images need to be put in articles if someone is interested in doing that. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah it was a fun event! By the way I split out New Zealand Open Source Awards from a redirect to an actual article, and I've started making a table with past winners if anyone wants to help out with that too. I think it's probably notable enough for its own page - there seems to be coverage about it each year. What I'm not sure about is the best form for the article to be in - ie a list or a table?? Ballofstring (talk) 04:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I've added some more refs and links. As to the format, no idea, but what's there seems to work. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Meetup Auckland: January 2015

Hi. We haven't had a meetup for ages and so it is high time. Another reason is there's http://linux.conf.au an open source + linux conference in Auckland] AND when I was in Perth in Jan 2014, there were a couple of guys who were keen on a meetup with local wikipedians. They were apparently meetup organisers in their local area. Unfortunately I don't remember their names. Also there's one presentation at the conference by someone who contributes to media wiki.

There were only 4 at 2010 meetup in Wellington. Also look at item 8 + 30. I think I had a conflict and couldn't make it.

So before I open up a meetup page OR ask conference attendees if they want a wikipedia meetup, thought I'd ask in here first to try gauge the interest. No I haven't asked speaker linked above if he wants to attend a meetup. Since the conference is from 12 - 16 January 2015, a meetup will likely be somewhere in Auckland CBD, during that week or on the weekend before or after the conference. Auckland Meetup page Linnah (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Interested (Add your username to this list if you're interested and don't feel like adding more comments): Linnah, haminoon, gadfium, sargdub,

Auckland Wikipedia meetup 7 page created Linnah (talk) 09:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Note added when page archived: This meetup didn't happen. Linnah (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Licence question regarding the New Zealand Electronic Text Collection

I have a quick question, I have found some text at http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/name-412282.html digitised and hosted by the New Zealand Eletronic Text Collection. According to http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-NZETC-About-copyright.html#ccbysa this is supplied under New Zealand Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike License. I should have no problem using text from this publication as the basis for an article right? It's easy to attribute, just adding clear information in the edit summary, and using {{CCBYSASource}} on the talk page. Am I right about this? -- Shudde talk 05:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

(a) I have a deep conflict of interest here (b) http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-NZETC-About.html gives Library-TechnologyServices@vuw.ac.nz as the email for copyright queries (c) this material was published before copyright came into being, so is not covered by copyright (d) the Cyclopedia of New Zealand was originally published as vanity press (most subjects paid to coverage and for the cost of taking and printing the photo). This vanity press issue is the major problem with this as a source. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I think the material I'm going to use is unlikely to be a problem regarding concerns over it being a vanity press. I will rewrite it regardless, but it'll save me time as it gives me something to start with. As for the copyright thing; I completely agree, I think it's quite terrible, but I have heard of organisations claiming copyright over PD material that they have digitised -- from what I remember their claim rests on them performing scanning of material (from what I know art galleries are notorious for this), which they claim gives them rights over the results (not the original though). In this case I'm not so sure it's such a problem as I'm pretty sure their licence is compatible with wikipedia's. I don't know why they wouldn't just release this into the PD, but better safe then sorry, hence my question. -- Shudde talk 06:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I sometimes use NZETC as a source and the first time I did, I struggled somewhat how to reflect the PD status in the referencing section. Have a look at this article how I went about it. If anybody has a better idea, please let me know. Schwede66 06:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Presence on facebook

I've started a page on facebook, in the hopes of recruiting more kiwi editors and raising the level of understanding of wikipedia. I've been manually adding items and I used an IFTTT rule to post new threads from the old WT:WPNZ page (since broken by the merge with this page). Feel free to join. If you edit and facebook under different names, you'll have to ping me if yo want to be an admin. I'll be talking about it at an event at Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa tomorrow see (Wikipedia:GLAM/National Digital Forum). https://www.facebook.com/WikiProjectNewZealand Stuartyeates (talk) 09:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for setting this up! Getting WPNZ onto social media is a really good idea. However I'm not sold on the IFTTT automatic publication of heaps of things. I think the way the Facebook algorithm works, if you continually post things which don't get any likes, pretty much nothing you post is going to make it into people's feeds. (And if it doesn't make it into people's feeds, it will never get seen.) I think a better, but definitely more time-intensive approach, would be to manually post things whenever something interesting happens or we want feedback on something. I'd be happy to help out (time permitting!). What do people think about a twitter account too? I normally have tweetdeck open which has good support for multiple accounts so would be happy to manage it (also time-permitting!). Ballofstring (talk) 04:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
That's great. Are you going to set up twitter + google+ too? I have been doing this for a couple of other orgs. May I suggest perhaps creating a unique email account on google mail and use this to create the google+ page or community, email contact for the email address for twitter + fb. I am not saying there's anything bad or wrong about setting it up with your email address. It is just that if we look at this long term, using an account set up for it means it can be easily passed on / handed over without you giving people access to your personal account(s). Anyway that is what I did for a club. Anyone else interested, the GLAM event National Digital Forum is on twitter using #ndf2014 hashtag and @ndfnz. Linnah (talk) 06:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
One has to be a little bit careful. There are legal restrictions regarding the use of names, logos etc. The Wikimedia Foundation may not be 100% happy with individual members creating social media pages or accounts that could be mistakenly thought to represent them. -- Shudde talk 07:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm happy to pull the media if someone complains. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I've got limited time, so I'm focusing on facebook right now; I picked facebook because some of the cultural institutions I deal with rave that they get lots more engagement on facebook than twitter / google plus. I was running Wikipedia:GLAM/National Digital Forum yesterday. There were ~26 editors in the room, which I believe makes it the largest gathering of wikipedians in .nz. Look for interesting things being done by Dowse Art Museum, Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa and National Library of New Zealand over the nest couple of months (not sure how much of it's public-public). Stuartyeates (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Would anyone have any objections if I were to set up a Twitter account for WPNZ? If people think it's okay, I'll put a prominent disclaimer that it isn't affiliated to the Wikimedia Foundation etc. And of course, I wouldn't attempt to take a position on anything controversial - rather just highlight good stuff which is happening and try and help people to get involved in editing. (I could set up an email account for the project too?) Ballofstring (talk) 02:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Go for it. I'm @stuartayeates, if you ping that handle I'll follow you and amplify. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Done! The account is "wikiprojectnz". Let me know if you want the login details or want me to do anything differently! Ballofstring (talk) 07:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Year in New Zealand series

I notice that under the appointments and honours category in each year, all the incumbent Anglican bishops of various eras are listed. Do you think that they have any claim to notability for inclusion in such lists? Why not the hierarchs of other religions as well? Various sects such as the Presbyterian, Catholic and Methodist surely have just as much importance in NZ history as the C of E. If someone set their hand to the work involved all the sects could be well represented and they could dominate the whole of each page. Do you think it would be a very good idea to remove the Anglican bishops from the pages altogether? Of course if one of them participated in some important historical event, that could be recorded in the events sections. For example, I imagine that Bp Selwyn did something important historically for the entire nation and not just for the Anglican church. Perhaps he was at the Treaty of Waitangi meetings like Pompallier? I would be interested in the general opinion.Rick570 (talk) 06:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's a link to 1860 by way of an example. I don't have a particularly strong opinion on the matter. Schwede66 08:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I take it most people think that the Anglican Bishops should remain and that the leaders of other denominations (at least the ones mentioned above) should be added to each year?Rick570 (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Given that I can find no other Year in Country article which has any such section I wonder if it is worth keeping at all. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 10:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
My preference is to remove them.Rick570 (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Should I remove the "appointments and awards" section for each year? I too can't find such a section in any other series. The actual date of appointment and significant New Zealand events in the career of Bishop Selwyn (for example) could be put in the events sections of the appropriate years. Has anyone any objection to this approach?Rick570 (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
That would be fine by me. Schwede66 20:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Christmas in New Zealand

Hi fellow Oceanians! I've recently split off the article Christmas in Australia and New Zealand from the Christmas traditions article. I thought our Christmas routines were similar enough that they could share an article. However being Australian, I'm not 100% on some of the NZ traditions. I'd appreciate some NZ eyes on the article, if you would like to add/fix anything you find missing/incorrect! -- Chuq (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_Zealand_Wikipedians%27_notice_board/Archive_19&oldid=1140112531"