Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 6

NZ Meetup No. 2?

Following up to from the last meetup (and a reminder) how are people for another one?. I would guess Wellington would be a natural choice of venue or perhaps elsewhere (Chc?) if enough are interested. Alternatively Auckland could have another one. I'm not sure Dec/Jan is a great time but perhaps it doesn't make a big difference. Thoughts? / Availability / Interest / Timing / Location ? - SimonLyall 06:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I am preliminary interested at a second meetup. I thing it’s to late to get one for December now, maybe early Jan? I don’t mind Wellington or Auckland, perhaps where the most people are interested? Yeah I am preliminary interested at a second meetup. I thing it’s to late to get one for December now, maybe early Jan? I don’t mind Wellington or Auckland, perhaps where the most people are interested? Brian | (Talk) 09:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I would be interested in attending if it was in Christchurch. However I am not a Wikipedian but a Wikinewsie. Nzgabriel 09:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll attend any meeting in or near Auckland.-gadfium 02:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll also do an Auckland thing if one happens. Mostlyharmless 07:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at my schedule I'm thinking the weekend of Feb 10th looks okay. If we want to have it somewhere like a pub then there are some Super 14 matches in the early morning (7am kickoff) or evening (7:30 pm kickoff) and a cricket final on the following day (don't know start time). If people are fairly happy with Auckland on that date then I can probably get the page started. - SimonLyall 11:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Feb 10 or 11 would be fine for me.-gadfium 21:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I have setup a page for the meetup at Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland 2. This is just a soft launch for now until we finalize the time, date and location. Please update the page (or it's talk) as requred. Suggestions for locations and agenda welcome. - SimonLyall 03:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Added myself to the list. Is there a policy on how we publicise this? Is it a no-no to simply put a note of that type on every NZ user's discussion page? MadMaxDog 08:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That's what was done last time. Spamming of user talk pages is okay for a meetup, just not for anything which you might appear to get an advantage from (ie support/oppose an RFA, XFD, or poll).

I suggest you look at the user page first, and if they give a location which is further south than Hamilton or further north than Whangarei, then don't tell them, but if you can't establish their location within NZ or they are close to Auckland, and they've made productive edits in the last month, then put the note on their talk page.-gadfium 08:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Damn, the place I was going to book doesn't take bookings on Weekends during the day. I'll move the place discussion over to Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Auckland 2 and post there in a minute. - SimonLyall 02:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Nambassa - 1.2MB article

Someone has created a very extensive article on the Nambassa organiation and festivals, but it has 43 images and weighs in at 1.3MB (which given the load on Wikipedia servers takes several minutes to load and has a good chance of not completing).

It looks as though the Wikimedia thumbnail generator is set to produce high-quality jpegs, with an average file size of 20-30KB. I'd reckon that I could get most of them under 10K if I was optimising them manually, but that of course requires human judgement to avoid images with bad jpg artifacts. Of course there is no means for attaching custom thumbnails to an image.

So what should be done with this page to give it a reasonable load time? dramatic 19:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts:

• Most of the images should probably go in a thumbnail gallery at the end
• I'm not an expert on this, but the image copyright legalities might be too restrictive for Wikipedia, so most of them might have to be removed
• Read WP:SIZE from the Wikipedia:Manual of Style

Papeschr 21:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm no expert on licensing, but I would have thought all the photos are asking is for the copyright holder to be acknowledged in any reproduction, and this is exactly what cc-by is for. CC-by is an appropriate license for wikipedia and for the commons.-gadfium 21:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

That's as may be, but at Wikipedia:Image use policy, under Rule Of Thumb, it clearly states "Don't put credits in images themselves". Moriori 02:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

(After edit conflict)I'd suggest

1. If you haven't already done so, put a message on the talk page of the major contributor explaining the problem and pointing them here for the discussion. Put a message on the talk page of the article as well.
2. move all images with suitable licenses to commons. Put the images into a Nambassa category on commons. The person who uploaded the photos should be consulted about this as a matter of courtesy.
3. remove all but three or four images from the article, and add a link to the commons category.

Alternative approaches:

1. break up into multiple articles. I don't think this is a viable approach for Nambassa, partly because the event itself doesn't warrant multiple articles, and partly because we don't have enough text on the individual subareas, such as "Sound and lighting at Nambassa" or "Workshops at Nambassa"
2. move to wikibooks. Again, not my preferred approach. The text is not excessive, the problem is load-time due to the pictures. I think we want to keep this article on Wikipedia.
3. link to a gallery of "images of Nambassa" on Wikipedia, and remove most from the article as above. I don't think this would be acceptable to most Wikipedians, but it might be possible if the uploader has a strong objection to the images going on commons.

Once the size is sorted out, I'll consider this as a selected article for the New Zealand portal.-gadfium 21:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

If it suits I'm happy to run all images by photo-shop and considerably downsize. Even remove the watermark on photos to keep ole' Mori happy? Mombas 11:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with that. If we have high res photos under a suitable license, there is no reason to downsize them. You could produce alternative versions if necessary but IMHO don't delete or modify any images, unless you're sure you've increased the quality. However the photos would be best kept on the commons not wikipedia IMHO. I would suggest the photos not used inline in the article be removed from the article. Link to the commons gallery instead with all the photosNil Einne 16:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

As the person responsible for all the Nambassa photos and 95% of the content of this article, may I suggest a compromise? Within the next month or so the official Nambassa website will host photo galleries with some 700 photos of these events, which I will link to from the Wikipedia article. I would then suggest that most of the photos on Wikipedia be deleted with the exception of around 5-7 selected images. Hopefully this will maintain this article within the 1.2mb criteria and still enable people wanting to look at more photos of these events the opportunity to do so on nambassa.com? Of the remaining photos on Wiki I will remove the watermark? Do I have agreement on this? Mombas 11:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. However, I can't say whether your request to delete the other images will be accepted. A few of them are used in other pages, such as hippie.-gadfium 03:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The actual images don't need to be deleted at any point. They can remain in wikipedia so other articles can link to them. Nil Einne's idea sounds best. - SimonLyall 05:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

List of New Zealand lakes

I came across the List of New Zealand lakes just the other day and found it in a fairly sad state. Since then, I've downloaded the list of geographic names from LINZ, parsed it - and have a provisional list of just over a thousand lakes(!). I was intending to re-hash the Lakes page to be similar to the List of rivers of New Zealand page, but some questions before I start.

1. There's going to be a LOT of red links - is this going to be a problem for anyone?
2. There's enough data to split them up by roughly by region (and hence by island). Is it preferable to do this and then list them alphabetically by each region - or just to produce one huge list (like the Rivers page)?
3. Is the list name correct? We have List of New Zealand lakes, but List of rivers of New Zealand - shouldn't they both follow the same standard phrasing?

Malathos 19:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with there being many redlinks.

Yes, split them up by region, or at least by island.

Looking at Category:Lists of lakes, most such article titles seem to be in the format "List of lakes in <country>" rather than "List of <country>an lakes", and the former style is preferred, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics).

Since you are going to be putting significant work into this, take a look at Featured lists for what makes a really good list. This won't qualify for featured list any time soon because of the proportion of redlinks, but following best practice guidelines would be good. We don't currently have a featured lakes list, but Lakes of Alberta looks to be rather nice.-gadfium 02:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers. I'll see what I can do :) Malathos 06:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Gadfium - the List of rivers of New Zealand also has lots of red-links, so that's no problem at all. One thing to be aware of when you're making this list is that several of the pages on NZ lakes are little more than glorified disambiguation pages - Blue Lake, New Zealand, for instance. The other thing to note is that when you're making the redlinks, try to follow the naming guidelines for NZ geography (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand)). Grutness...wha? 23:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Where I encounter disambiguation pages like Lake Rotoroa - do I put an entry for each lake on the same page - or should I stub them all off like - Lake Rotoroa, Northland, Lake Rotoroa, Waikato etc ? Malathos 20:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If a lake has at least a paragraph about it, as Lake Rotoroa, Nelson does, give it its own entry, leaving a single line in the disambiguation page. Others just get a line or two on the disambiguation page with a redlink until someone decides to write more. The dab page doesn't need to have subheadings, in my opinion. Lakes should be given the name by which they are best known, so Hamilton Lake would be preferable to Lake Rotoroa, Hamilton, with a redirect from the latter.-gadfium 20:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Phew! The new list is now up. Some notes -

• First off, it's pretty big and it'll get bigger.
• There's a LOT of red-links - which I'm hoping to start on some time soon (that's me busy for the rest of the year!).
• I'd envisaged moving an entire section out of the list and leaving a link (For lakes in Auckland region, see List of Lakes in Auckland, New Zealand) when red links in any one section become a minority.
• It looks like there are duplicates - I think I've tracked down nearly all of these - but there *are* 3 Lake Rotokawau in Northland - how we identify duplicate named features in the same region, I'm not sure.
• the data is sourced from the LINZ datafile - plus a lot of pouring over Google Earth and various maps of NZ. LINZ don't use standard NZ regions, so some of the regional positioning of lakes may be a bit off.
• There are lots of disambiguations - mostly just stubbed (or somewhere in Minnesota, bizzarrely). I'll work on those as a priority just to reduce the confusion.
• The formatting is a first stab - please make suggestions

Malathos 23:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Article for deletion

Jared Lane is presently at articles for deletion. Not sure if he's notable but just thought I'd bring it to the attention of NZ Wikipedians. Orderinchaos78 16:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

All Blacks submitted for FAC

Hi, All Blacks has been submitted as a Feature Article Candidate. If you would like to assist in the review, or help get the article to FA standard please read the comments here. Also, has been suggested that some articles of All Black coaches be created, especially Fred Allen (rugby player) and Laurie Mains. Thanks. - Shudda ^talk 11:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

On a related matter, most of the Ka Mate article seems to be about an American football university team. I know there are extensive articles like Haka of the All Blacks and 2006 Kapa O Pango controversy, but the state of the Ka Mate article seems not quite right to me, and I wonder if any NZ Wikipedians would be interested in sorting it out. 12:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Much of the material was duplicated verbatim already in the Haka in popular culture article, so I removed it from the Ka Mate article. Thanks for keeping us informed. Kahuroa 12:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Auckland Meetup 2 Scheduled - Feb 10 2007

You are all invited to Auckland Meetup 2 on the afternoon of Saturday February 10th 2007 at Galbraith's Ale House in Mt Eden. Please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland 2 for details. You can also bookmark Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland to be informed of future NZ meetups. - SimonLyall 05:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Reminder that meetup is this weekend. - SimonLyall 00:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/New Zealand/archive1

I have requested a peer review of the New Zealand article. It is at Wikipedia:Peer review/New Zealand/archive1. Hopefully we can get it to FA status. --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 02:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

New Zealand governments

There is a suggestion that we create articles on the various New Zealand governments, eg Fourth Labour Government of New Zealand for the 1984-1990 Labour Government. Please see Talk:Rogernomics#4th_Labour_govt.-gadfium 07:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Given the discussion at Talk:Rogernomics#4th_Labour_govt, I have created a small (as in bare bones at the moment) sub-project page for co-ordination at Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/governments. --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 02:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Maintaining 2007 in New Zealand

Well, we made it 10 days into the new year without anyone having created the page, so I took the initiative.

It looks as though whoever had been updating current events regularly got distracted last october and the Year in NZ pages have been languishing since then. Any volunteers for a roster? Would it work best if we broke it down by areas of interest (e.g. news, politics, sport, culture) or just had several people checking sources regularly. dramatic 09:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I used to transfer news over from the portal every couple of months. It is not too hard to do assuming the content is there. Perhaps we can also use wikinews as a source. I notice there have been no new stories on the portal for a couple of weeks. No pointing doing the collecting twice. - SimonLyall 10:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I would be keen to monitor politics for 2007. Jonathanpl 03:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

New Zealand Collaboration of the Fortnight

Hi, I'm trying to resurrect the New Zealand Collaboration of the Fortnight (NZCOTF). If you would like to help out please visit the collaboration page here. Thanks. - Shudda ^talk 00:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

New Zealand constitutional crisis, 1984

I've put a snippet about this article up for DYK at Template_talk:Did_you_know#January_22. My wording is a bit clumsy, so improvements would be welcome.-gadfium 02:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

RfC

Hi everyone... I'm involved in a dispute with another user who has accused me of being an anti-Asian racist. I'd greatly appreciate it if some editors here who've known my work over the last few years might be able to take a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Yugayuga and make some comment, even if they agree with what he said. It would be good to have some input. Grutness...wha? 06:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeepers, what a load of ****. Should never have gone that far. And since I didn't just want to endorse a view favouring you just because I know you a little, I actually had to spend 10 minutes reading through the whole mess before I did! Ah well, at least learned a little about stub sorting. MadMaxDog 09:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

1981 Springbok Tour

1981 Springbok Tour is now the collaboration of the fortnight. The article needs a lot of work, and hopefully a few Kiwi editors can dig in and help. For example, it would be nice for someone to add a lead section! So please have a look at the article and help out if you can. If anyone would like to nominate another collaboration or vote for any current nominees, please visit Wikipedia:New Zealand Collaboration of the Fortnight - Shudda ^talk 22:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

New Zealand topics

I see the template {{New Zealand topics}} has been created and added to many New Zealand related topics. The template looks very nice, but it is substantially a duplicate of Portal:New Zealand/Topics (a version of which has been substed into the New Zealand article). Should we use this template on the portal and in the New Zealand article instead of the Portal topics page? If so, we should remove the graphics since these pages already include those graphics. Do we want this template in the other New Zealand articles?-gadfium 04:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

See whatlinkshere for a list of the articles containing the template.-gadfium 05:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• It didn't occur to me that the portal may already feature something similar; apologies, especially if I have created something redundant. I was prompted by the New Zealand article's former "See also" section plus seeing similar templates for other countries; those templates appeared on the pages they linked, so I began doing the same for {{New Zealand topics}}. I'll now wait pending the outcome here. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• ...No further input here, so shall I finish adding {{New Zealand topics}} to the articles it links...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 05:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely comfortable with such "navigational templates" being added to articles (because I don't think they add value), but since no one else is objecting, go ahead. I do see value in the template as a replacement for the portal topics template, but it would need to lose the graphics to become a replacement for it. In the absence of comment, I suppose we'll keep both of them.-gadfium 08:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've amended it so that its default state is collapsed (to make the template more discreet) and will add it to the remaining articles it links. I agree that too many of these navigational templates in one place may overload an article – I see, however that other country articles now group these multiple collapsed templates; perhaps these groups could themselves be collapsed – but not that they add no value; at least, not insofar as someone browsing rather than researching can see the scope of related articles and choose one to visit. Hopefully, though, if they're collapsed by default, they'll be less obtrusive.

If there's interest in adopting the template minus its images for the portal, my first thought is to try adding a parameter such as {{New Zealand topics|without images}} to suppress them.

Thanks for your thoughts; I hope the above is acceptable. Yours, David (talk) 10:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you possibly add a link to NZ cuisine ( Cuisine ). that was in Portal:New Zealand/Topics. Food is an important part of the culture. There's a link to New Zealand wine within the cuisine article. Perhaps it is worth looking at Portal:New Zealand/Topics to see if any important/main topic is not included in your template. I notice there's a link to List of New Zealanders, is it worth adding Category:New Zealand or List_of_New_Zealand-related_topics in that "section"? The latter looks like WIP and not as complete as the former. Just a few ideas. Linnah 16:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for these pointers; I'll take a look a little later. Meanwhile, this being Wikipedia, feel free to try adding them!  Best wishes, David (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't want to alter your original template as I thought it was your project and wasn't sure if my ideas fit in or if you'd mind others making changes to it. Thanks for letting me know you don't mind. I'll have a look in due course. I think care should be taken to pick what to add to the template you have created otherwise we'll end up wiht a list of all topics (which is what we don't want). Linnah 07:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Having now encountered a page with the template, I really don't like it - I feel that it adds way too much weight of irrelevant material to the pages its on, most of the links being one click away already as there is a link to New Zealand on nearly all the pages. As well as wasting bandwidth, it might corrupt search results with articles turning up in searches for unrelated keywords. dramatic 08:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just had a look at New Zealand cuisine, and I think that anyone searching for New Zealand food should end up there. I have no idea how to set that up, so could someone either do that or explain how? Ta. --Helenalex 01:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Shudda ^talk 02:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

For how you do it, see Wikipedia:Redirect.-gadfium 04:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If subsequently there's consensus to remove the template, that's fine. Along the lines of a comment above, I reckon that whether someone regards these templates as useful or a hindrance depends on why/how they're using Wikipedia, e.g. focused reseach vs. curiosity-driven browsing. Re "corrupt[ing] search results with articles turning up in searches for unrelated keywords", I'd say (hope!) that anything like that is unlikely, as the template appears at the end of the articles to which it's been transcluded. I realise, though, I may be misunderstanding how the wiki software conducts searches (and/or overlooking something else). Regards, David (talk) 08:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

New user

Hello! New user Scooby101 is in, making several new articles about train stations in New Zealand. See his contributions: [1]. They will need check from NZ WikipediaNZ as well as some consistency work. - Darwinek 12:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Idea for article

Considering that there is a page on the 2006–2007 Dutch cabinet formation, maybe one should be made for the 1996 New Zealand government formation?

See Fourth National Government of New Zealand. It probably isn't worth splitting out the material on the 1996 Government formation. If a similar event occurs after the 2008 election, it might become a separate article, simply because we write in more detail about more recent events (I'm not saying this is a desirable thing; just that it happens).-gadfium 07:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

When I wrote the 'National-New Zealand First coalition' section of that page I wondered if it would work better to split that off and just have one or two paragraphs on the government page. As it is it seems a bit long. I would tend to think that a page on the coalition - how it was formed, how it worked (or didn't), how it fell apart and the aftermath - makes more sense than just a page on its formation. If anyone wants to start this, beginning with transferring my stuff onto a new page, I think they should. I will probably keep working on the government pages rather than contribute to it, though. --Helenalex 00:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Crusaders (rugby) as FAC

Hey, I've nominated Crusaders (rugby) to FAC. As many will know the article is about the New Zealand rugby team. It's not received much comment or feedback yet. If you would like to have a look at the article and add your support or opposition (with reasons please) to it's nomination then please do so here. Thank-you. - Shudda ^talk 04:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Births and Deaths in timeline of NZ History

We now have a couple of thousand articles on New Zealanders linked from their birth/death year in the "Year in New Zealand" series (1900 - 2007). This makes the scattering of births and deaths in the timeline seem inappropriate. Other than deaths of Prime Ministers while in office (which had significant effect on the country) does anyone think that there is any category of New Zealanders important enough for their birth/death years to remain on the timeline?

I have only one candidate for inclusion - the deaths of Māori monarchs and subsequent coronations of the new monarch (these weren't even in the year articles until last week).

I suggest that we leave the current entres for 19th century and earlier as these are not yet covered by year in NZ articles. dramatic 10:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the births and deaths no longer belong in the timeline, with the exception of deaths with significant effect on the country. To rationalise births and deaths prior to 1900, should we create an article 19th century in New Zealand, or possibly a series of articles 1890s in New Zealand for each decade? These could have the births and deaths, and events initially copied from the timeline. I would suggest we not add empty sections but instead build up the article(s) with lists of mayors, etc only as someone has the inclination. I'm not volunteering to populate them!-gadfium 19:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Another hoax article?

Tu Pounamu IV does not ring true. Not one of the names mentioned on the page gets a google hit, the language is unusual for an article about a Māori leader (Aproriginal, prince), Ngāti Awa do not come from Gisborne, etc. This not only needs references, it needs verification of the references. (The book is real, according to National Library catalogue, but its subject matter does not appear relevant). dramatic 09:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Totally bogus. BTW the creator of the article has made a reference to Tu Pounamu IV in Aquinas College, Tauranga, giving Grey's Polynesian Mythology as a source for the family having converted from Ringatuism to Catholicism. Grey is purely and simply a collection of traditional stories, and makes no mention of Catholicism or Ringatuism - in fact Grey, first published around 1854, predates Ringatuism which was started AFAIK by Te Kooti who was much later in the 19th C. Kahuroa 14:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I've listed it for afd - hope you don't mind but I've copied this discussion over there. Grutness...wha? 22:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

...and it has now been admitted to be a hoax. Which shows that the NZ New articles bot is a very useful tool. dramatic 18:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Herb Green

Could a few editors take a look at Herb Green, and the edits that I have just removed as POV and unsourced. This is a controversial matter, and it may be that the existing article is not sufficiently balanced, but the edits made recently were all in one direction.-gadfium 05:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The edits seem reasonable. Looking at the creator's talk page I think he has a problem with the concept of 'point of view'... --Helenalex 05:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Laslett

Special:Contributions/Glaslett may need some gentle adminly enlightenment. s/he appears to be creating a Genealogical repositry of non-notable people. dramatic 03:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article was started long before that username appeared, though it may be the same person. Anyway, I've emailed him or her to invite its addition to the Genealogy Wikia, where it will fit in perfectly even if it does get more unencyclopaedic. Robin Patterson 12:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Tree images needed

Hi folks. I've been starting some articles on trees etc for the Māori wikipedia, but many of the articles about New Zealand trees on enWiki are lacking pictures. Pix really add a lot so I am keen to add them! I was able to track down some copyright-free images and upload them to Commons, I also took some myself, but the following are among the many still outstanding. So, if any of you has a digital camera and a native tree or two nearby, here is my wishlist (not all of these have articles on the English-language Wikipedia):

1. Kawaka Libocedrus plumosa
2. New Zealand Cedar / Pāhautea Libocedrus bidwillii
3. Black Maire / Maire raunui Nestegis cunninghamii
4. Kirks Pine / Manoao Halocarpus kirkii
5. Miro Prumnopitys ferruginea
6. Silver Beech/Tāwhai Nothofagus menziesii
7. Black Beech /Tāwhai pango Nothofagus solandri
8. Red Beech / Tāwhai raunui Nothofagus fusca
9. Tōtara Podocarpus totara (at present we only have a pic of its bark)
10. Halls Tōtara / Tōtara kōtukutuku Podocarpus cunninghamii

and many many more... Generally we need clear pix of either the whole tree, and/or its foliage and/or its fruit that you are willing to upload to commons under a free licence. In fact there are loads of articles on NZ plants, birds and animals that need photos or better photos... Grateful for any help. Cheers Kahuroa 09:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've taken photos of most of the above - will upload over the next few days and strike them out when I have. Kahuroa 22:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved from talk page

There was a redirect here, which is a little odd. Even though it was rarely used, doesn't seem like a reason for a redirect? Anyway... that wasn't my reason for typing here. I have a NZ law related question, felt like here might be a good place to ask? Although I did consider Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities for a moment, thought I'd give somewhere NZ specific a chance first. Last week I happened to be watching Campbell Live on TV3, he had a top criminal lawyer invited onto the show. She said something which shocked me, that in cases involving sexual allegations the accused is assumed guilty until proven to be Innocent. Did I hear this incorrectly, or is this some kind of rare exception? Because I believed that it is a fundamental basis of the NZ law system that it is based on the assumption that you are assumed innocent until proven guilty? Mathmo ^Talk 01:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)\

Mathmo, there was a good reason for that redirect - all discussion on this noticeboard takes place on the talk page. I too am surprised if what that lawyer said is correct - it certainly makes little sense according to NZ law, but then again, IANAL. Grutness...wha? 03:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see the show, but I would assume that the lawyer meant that in the public mind people on trial for sex offences are assumed to be guilty unless proven innocent (and sometimes even then), rather than the law presumes them guilty. The conviction rate for rape is something like 10%, which would hardly happen if everyone accused of rape had to prove they were innocent, which would be difficult even if they were innocent (what are they going to do, provide a note from their accusor saying 'I consent'?). Also, it would be completely contrary to the fundamental principles of the NZ law system. Does this make sense in terms of what the lawyer was saying? --Helenalex 04:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I too would have assumed that is what the lawyer would have meant. "In the public mind", but that wasn't the impression I got from watching Campbell Live (if I hadn't got that impression of what she said I wouldn't know be here trying to make sense of it!). Due to the fact that this appears to be "completely contrary to the fundamental principles of the NZ law system" (as you said yourself) and the general nature of TV which makes coverage often a quick overview which is skimpy on the details I have been attempting to clarify this. Unfortunately we seem to be a little on the light side of things in so far as the number of NZ law articles that we have, and what else I've read on wikipedia has made me a slightly more suspect this weird statement could be true. But still absolutely nothing that has made my mind completely sure, so until then I'll just have to carry on assuming there was some kind of error in either what I heard or what she said. Anybody know of a good NZ Law related forum (or similar) where I could go to for better advice on this potentially bizarre topic? Mathmo ^Talk 05:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess what I'm looking for is something dealing specifically with sexually allegations in NZ, because I'm already familiar with the general principles of NZ law (just trying to sort out the specifics now to do with this). Mathmo ^Talk 05:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Current primetime television schedules

From time to time, people have added schedule tables to New Zealand television network articles, as exist on some US and Australian tv articles. See this most recent example. I've removed them according to what I see as policy. Since there are these other articles which do have schedules, I've tried to raise the wider questions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#Current_primetime_television_schedules. There seems to be no consensus on whether we should allow such material, so I'm not sure how best to proceed. Please contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television.-gadfium 22:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Waikouaiti

A user has pointed out on Talk:Waikouaiti that large portions of the article were lifted entire from the 1966 Encyclopedia of New Zealand. I've reverted the article more than a year to expunge the copyvio, and then added back in sections which were not derived from the copyvio, and parts of one paragraph which no longer closely resembles the source. This leaves the article somewhat unbalanced, as there is little material on the history left and uneven coverage of the geography. Could editors who know the area clean it up a bit please.-gadfium 04:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

NZ culture

I have been working on the Culture of New Zealand page, and I think it is in need of major reorganisation and rewriting, including the creation of a Pakeha culture page. I've put my suggestions on the talk page, so if anyone is interested, please say what you think. --Helenalex 22:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

A pretty formidable effort to say the least.Mombas 09:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

South Island independence

An anon and a user (not the same as the IP) have added a link to a "South Island Independence" website. The anon also added a link to a forum. I removed these as unsuitable for Wikipedia, but the user is insisting. I'd like further opinions. Please see South Island Independence and its talk page.-gadfium 05:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Kiwifruit

Has anyone heard or people eating the golden kiwifruit with skin? I know you can peel them (as you can with the green ones) but I've never heard of eating them with skin. But this sentence seems to suggest people do:

Unlike the green cultivars, it is less hairy, so it can be eaten whole after rubbing off the thin, fluffy coat.

Nil Einne 11:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I eat the whole green kiwifruit. Mmmm, yummy! Nzgabriel 09:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Me too, I love the contrasting texture/taste and usually can't be bothered finding a spoon. Lisiate 22:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Govt-Gen used wikipedia!

I was looking at speeches made recently by the Governor-General, Anand Satyanand and found this in a speech made on the 20-Mar-2007: I remember as a law clerk sitting in a room with an old colleague who was an RNZAF man of the Second World War describing what it was like to learn flying the Vickers Vilderbeest which I checked on Wikipedia yesterday were described as “particularly unwieldly”. Brian | (Talk) 09:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. The previous Australian G-G complained directly to Jimbo about his entry on national radio this week too. --cj | talk 09:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

New Zealand specific welcome

Back in October 2006, User:Midnighttonight added a couple of welcome messages for New Zealand contributors to Wikipedia. The first, User:Midnighttonight/Welcome, which is used as {{subst:User:Midnighttonight/Welcome}} --~~~~., is for people who have not already been welcomed to Wikipedia, and the second, User:Midnighttonight/WelcomeNZ, used as {{subst:User:Midnighttonight/WelcomeNZ}} --~~~~, for people who have been given one of the other standard welcomes but not links to the New Zealand-specific information.

I thought these were an excellent idea, and have been using them to welcome new editors since. I wonder if it's time to move them to template namespace, and put a permanent reminder of them at the top of this page and also at WP:NZ. I'm also not sure if the welcome should still mention the Wikipedia:New Zealand Collaboration of the Fortnight, since that hasn't really been in a healthy state for many months.-gadfium 19:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea... Kahuroa 19:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Support the idea too. MadMaxDog 03:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The messages are now at {{New Zealand welcome}} and {{New Zealand welcome2}}. Please subst when using them. They are not currently protected, so take a look at the result after using one.-gadfium 05:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes for NZ towns and cities etc

Other countries use the Infobox template or a variant of it for the info panels on town or city pages. New Zealand town and city articles don't so this - we use tables, ie lots of convoluted code on each town page, hard to standardise, hard to edit, difficult to use the code from one article to generate a new article, hard to transfer into other language Wikipedias (like the Māori one). Is it time to think about this? Some of the things to consider:

• What do we want to include?
• Should we use a standard (but versatile) pre-existing template like Template:Infobox City, as used in Austin or Ottawa? (Those examples have a lot of detail and graphics - although the same template can easily generate a simpler version.
• Should we develop our own template (perhaps less versatile)? The Aussies use Template:Infobox Australian Place as shown on Adelaide... the Aussies seem to have gone for a no-frills version.
• How do we go about implementing the change? IE who can do the work, best way to approach the task etc

Any thoughts about whether we should make this change and on what to include? Kahuroa 01:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree New Zealand articles need to move away from tableised infoboxes. Template:Infobox Australian Place is actually incredibly complex, and is used for cities, towns, suburbs and municipalities. I'm sure the collaborators behind that template would be happy to help create a Kiwi version, if that's the way you decide to go.--cj | talk 02:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep, we'd be happy to help our Trans-Tasman colleagues :) There was a few of us who helped develop the Australian one over about a 4 month period. There was quite a design process went into it (look on the talk page archives) and we took in a lot of different ideas and perspectives. This was good in making sure the resulting template was actually accepted by the wider community.

The advantages are that it's easy to use, it has stayed as simple as possible (we rejected a lot of optional parameters to keep it that way) and with the flexible parameters they can be used for anything - examples include the recently featured Hamersley, Western Australia (a suburb within Perth), the Shire of Mukinbudin (a council area), Harvey, Western Australia (a large town) and Babakin, Western Australia (a very small one). Obviously they wouldn't have the same requirements as some in that template were particular to Australia, and you guys may want a different look and feel (fonts, colours, wording/naming etc), but a lot of things would be in common. Orderinchaos 03:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - I've modified a few infobox templates for the Māori wikipedia, so have some idea of what's involved. By 'no-frills' I meant that in the Australians have minimised the amount of graphics and details that the infoboxes show. Complexity (in the template) is good - equals versatility, and is way better than the convoluted table code we use in the articles at the moment which has to be offputting for inexperienced editors. Really it's just a matter of deciding what we want to include, then working out what's the best way to achieve it. I'd be grateful for any Aussie help Kahuroa 03:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have designed a own one for Taupo related articles, will these articles be able to keep there infobox, or will everyone want a standard one? Brian | (Talk) 04:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Would probably be standard. When IAP was launched last November it replaced 22 others that were in circulation. However, what's already in existing ones would definitely be something you'd want to consider when developing a new standard one. Orderinchaos 04:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Standard one, I think. What would work for Template:Infobox Taupo should also work elsewhere. (PS people, I didn't mean to draw attention away from Gadfium's question above about the welcome templates.) Kahuroa 06:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

PS.. Brian's Template:Infobox Taupo is probably a good thing to include in consideration of what we want to include... Kahuroa 00:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're looking for yet another approach to town infoboxes, might I suggest {{Infobox German Location}} - which is sorta halfway in format between Infobox Australian Place and Infobox City. Specific for German locations, this one was made to import information from the German wiki (this is why most of the variables are still in German, but a bilingual version is in the works). For an example, see Cologne - in this case, the German and English names are shown; perhaps you might wish to display English and Māori names in this way. Ultimately, you might want to have similar formats on the English and Māori wikis, too. - 52 Pickup 11:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

New Zealand European over Pakeha

I am intending, over the next few weeks to edit New Zealand articles to fit current official terms. I will do more than a search and replace, so as to ensure grammar is correct. The fact of the matter is, Pakeha is a colloquial and non-official term, unknown to persons outside of New Zealand, and taken by many New Zealand Europeans with a great deal of offence, not to mention the mere definition of the word is under constant debate and scrutiny. For the benefit of all who read through New Zealand articles, especially those from overseas, there needs to uniformity throughout all articles when describing our (New Zealand European) race. Therefore I put forward that New Zealand European be the uniform description of the white race living in New Zealand. --Hayden5650 09:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Hayden5650

Since you are apparently proposing to edit several New Zealand articles, not just this one, I think it would be wise to seek a wider audience. I have copied this to Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board, and suggest that the discussion takes place there. -- Avenue 10:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

One concern I have with this proposal is that Pākehā is often used to refer to all Europeans living in New Zealand, not just New Zealand Europeans. By the way, our New Zealand European article seems to ignore the distinction between the New Zealand European and Other European ethnic groups (as well as the difference between ethnicity and race), so don't trust the current version. -- Avenue 10:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concern, Avenue, and thankyou for copying to this forum. What I propose is that white New Zealand Citizens are referred to as New Zealand European. This is the official usage. Other whites whom happen to be in New Zealand could be referred to by the generic terms White or Caucasion, however that is getting beyond the intention of my proposal as from what I have seen, 'foreign' whites are usually referred to by their respective Nationalities or ethnicities rather than their race. I am simply trying to introduce uniformity and clarification. Their is now a Maori wiki, where Maori people can feel free to describe ethnicities/races/nationalities as they see fit. Other examples to further this point is that on the English wiki, we refer to Germans as Germans, not Deutsche, Indians as Indians, not Hindustani, French as French, not Francais etc. --Hayden5650 11:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Hayden5650

A couple of thoughts on this. Firstly, is "New Zealand European" 'official'? I'm not sure exactly who or how defines officialdom, but Statistics New Zealand are at least equivocal between the two terms. I can't (off the top of my head) think who else might sanction ethnicity (if in fact, ethnicity is sanctionable). I think the police still persist in Caucasian. Therefore, I think before any wholesale change is made, it should be determined if one or other is offical. Secondly, and possibly more relevant, is that standardization may not be desireable. There are plenty of people who object to either NZ European or Pakeha, and it doesn't seem appropriate to describe someone's ethnicity in terms they do not themselve use --Limegreen 11:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify: Statistics NZ have developed a statistical standard for ethnicity that should be used in all NZ's official statistics. The companion ethnicity classification has European as one of the main level 1 categories. This splits into New Zealand European and Other European at level 2. "New Zealander" appears as one of over 200 ethnic groups at level 4, the most detailed level, and Pākehā does not appear at all. So there are no official statistics on "Pākehā". They are also careful to distinguish between someone's present ethnicity and their race, ancestry, citizenship, or ethnic origin. These are all different concepts. -- Avenue 14:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

To re-un-clarify. Statistics NZ moved to 'Pākehā or New Zealand European' as the census term in 1996. The current 'standard' is to collect 'New Zealand European', but this is for validity and reliability reasons, rather than an official sanction. Essentially, they reverted to the 1991 ethnicity question, to retain consistency over timeReview of the Measurement of Ethnicity. Also, the quality of the data they get is better when they don't mention Pākehā (basically because people who identify as Pākehā will usually tick New Zealand European, but people who would prefer to tick New Zealand European will not tick Pākehā).

As a further argument against any extreme standardisation, Michael King would be an obvious example where Pākehā is a better description than New Zealand European. --Limegreen 22:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I had focused on the current standard in an attempt to simplify things; perhaps that was an over-simplification. Yes, the second tick-box in 1996 included the term Pākehā, although it was actually labeled "New Zealand European or Pākehā" (not the other way around). Many fewer people ticked this box than ticked the "New Zealand European" box in 1991 or 2001 (which was listed first, before Māori). This might have been related to discomfort with the term Pākehā, as you suggest, or its placement after the Māori box, or the availability of an "Other European" box and sub-boxes in 1996. By the way, "New Zealand European" appeared for the first time in the 1991 Census; "European" was used before that. All very muddled, even without talking about the varying treatment of people who wrote in "New Zealander" instead.

According to the Review document, they decided to revert to the 1991 question in 2001 "...after research and evaluation showed that the 1991 question provided a better measure of ethnicity based on the current [1996] statistical standard", not for consistency over time. The 2006 question then followed the 2001 version for consistency. -- Avenue 13:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I've read that document in the past, and was mostly quoting from memory. However, 'New Zealand European' did not replace 'European' in 1991. 1991 was the first census to ask a strictly ethnicity question. The 1986 question was about ethnicity AND descent, hence the use of 'European' (as that relates to the descent aspect). The "better measure of ethnicity" related to my comment about people ticking the appropriate box. Thinking of which, it will be interesting to see how their new approach to treating "New Zealander"/"Kiwi" write-ins works. --Limegreen 00:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right, "New Zealand European" wouldn't have worked as a response to the 1986 question ("What is your ethnic origin?"). And yes, it will be very interesting to see how their novel "New Zealander" approach works out. -- Avenue 04:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree with Hayden5650's argument and counter-argue that Pākehā should be Wikipedia's standard. Current official usage can be duly noted, but official usage does not always conform with regular usage amongst the general public, and official usage can be very changeable - after all, around the time of the last census, there was debate over whether the "New Zealand European" label should be changed. Furthermore, the contention that "many" Pākehā find the term offensive strikes me as complete nonsense (I certainly know no-one offended by it, and I call myself a Pākehā), and those who are offended are because of misconceptions. The word has entered New Zealand English, so it should not be excluded from the English Wikipedia due to its Maori origins (should we rename Wikipedia because its name is a Hawaiian and Greek-sourced portmanteau - or eliminate the word 'portmanteau' while we're at it?), and it is readily understandable to a foreigner simply by linking to the article on Pākehā. The argument that "New Zealand European" is somehow more understandable strikes me as bizarre as Europe is on the other side of the world and, for clarification, it would have to be linked, just like Pākehā. The implications of "New Zealand European" seem certain to cause even more confusion, and if I may speak only for myself here, I would not wish to be considered "European" of any sort as I have never even been there and do not identify with it at all. Some New Zealanders may, but I suspect that with the growth of New Zealand-born Caucasians each generation, less and less of New Zealand's citizens will feel any cultural or ethnic connection to Europe and the term will become outdated and unused. - Axver 11:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The only debate about the meaning of the word is from people who seem determined to invent a derogatory definition where none exists. And I wonder why you thought it necessary to remove this sentence 'Several of the differences also show the influence of Māori speech' from the section about New Zealand English, bro? How does that 'edit New Zealand articles to fit current official terms'? Kahuroa 20:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

In the Culture of New Zealand article, where this started, the term "pākehā culture" is not the same thing as "New Zealand European culture". In general, what is meant by pākehā culture in this article is "British and Irish New Zealand culture". The article is not including, for example, Dalmatian New Zealand culture or French New Zealand culture in this term. Pākehā can mean any non-Māori person, but normally means New Zealanders of Anglo/European extraction, and so long as the article makes clear which meaning is intended, it is exactly the right word to use. I think the meaning is currently clear from context, but I would have no objection to this being spelled out in more detail if anyone thinks that is necessary.-gadfium 20:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

IN response to Hayden's comment that there 'is now a Maori wiki, where Maori people can feel free to describe ethnicities/races/nationalities as they see fit' I would point out that in fact, the references to Pākehā in the Culture of New Zealand were not added by Māori editors, but by other New Zealanders using it in effect as a SELF-description. Banning Māori to the so-called 'Māori' Wiki would have made no difference. The word in question is in the Oxford ENGLISH dictionary by the way. Sure, the Culture of New Zealand article has its problems - chiefly that much of it is unsourced, and I think that the opening paragraph is debatable to say the least. However, it is in the process of being rewritten, a process involving much discussion and negotiation to arrive at a consensus version. That is the better approach. Kahuroa 00:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The term Pakeha is commonly used in New Zealand English. If an article is in New Zealand English then there is no need to change the term. It all seems like a pointless waste of time (that could be spent on more productive matters). I do think that wiki-linking the term in it's first usage in an article is a good idea however, because those that are unfamiliar with the term could then read it's article. Other then that its going to achieve nothing. - Shudda ^talk 00:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, to Kahuroa, the reason I deleted the sentence 'Several of the differences also show the influence of Maori speech' from the section about New Zealand English, is that it is simply an unfounded statement, with no expansion or explanation given. I was not debating whether or not there is influence, just whether it meets wiki standard. After reading through the various responses posted here, it is obvious there are many points to be made on either side of the argument some of them valid. However I feel little consensus has been found, which I see to be further backing up my point of view that Pakeha is not an agreed upon term and should not be used. In saying this though, I deem that at this stage in time it would unwise to enforce blanket use of one term over the other. I will, instead, seek to create and improve articles on New Zealand Europeans, their culture, race, etc, and let the various New Zealand articles using this word evolve, such that in the future definition between the two terms can be easily seen and recognised as being the correct term (whichever it may be) for the article. This is not to say, though, that all existing articles will remain untouched, but will be edited according to the desired intention of the article. I think our first objective should be to expand the 'Pakeha' and 'New Zealand European' articles, to concisely define between which terms pertain to race, ethnicity, nationality and culture. Particular attention should be paid to the differentiation between 'European' as an ethnicity and as a nationality, as ethnicity is derived from historical trends in blood etc. An example would be a negro living in Europe would indeed be European by Nationality, but African by ethnicity. --Hayden5650 03:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Hayden5650

You're right, there seems to be no consensus that we should standardise on any of these terms. I also agree that the New Zealand European and Pākehā articles need improvement. -- Avenue 15:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Political party categories

I've noticed that most of the major NZ political party categories (Category:New Zealand National Party, Category:New Zealand Labour Party, Category:New Zealand First etc) have a whole lot of MP page in that category, and then an MP subcategory. Is there any kind of reason for this duplication? It seems like it would be better to put the MPs in the MP subcat, and leave the party category for the party page and related stuff which should be in there but generally isn't, like Rogernomics in the Labour Party category. However, this would leave some party categories empty except for the MPs category. --Helenalex 07:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, the NZ politician subcategories seem to have become very arcane and tangled, and would benefit from being simplified and generally untangled. --Helenalex 07:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a proposed organisation of the politician subcategories... yes, it is simpler than what's already there. Obviously I've used Labour as an example, and left out a few of the cabinet ministries. Also, I'm not sure about whether to combine MPs and MHRs, and if so, how. Oh, and the arrows from Labour local body pols' and 'Labour leaders' to their parent categories are going in the wrong direction. But you get the picture. --Helenalex 08:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be very happy for you to reorganise politicians' articles along these lines.-gadfium 09:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that looks confusing :P. It looks good, I support. However, I suggest instead of Members of NZ Cabinet. Use Members of NZ Executive Council. So ministers outside cabinet can be included etc. Brian | (Talk) 07:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Where would former politicians fit into this structure? Donna Awatere Huata probably should not be listed as affiliated with ACT (she was expelled from caucus and let her membership lapse). There are no doubt other examples. Similarly for Taito Phillip Field he has been expelled from the Labour party and thus is not currently linked to any party. Otherwise it looks a good structure to apply.--Mendors 08:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Former politicians, and those who have changed parties, still should get listed as politicians for the party that they were elected for. They may also be listed under their new party, if any. Thus Winston Peters is listed under both National Party and New Zealand First, since he's been a politician in both parties.-gadfium 09:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I realised that theres nowhere for Category:New Zealand neo-Nazis, since they don't all belong to the same political party (they are currently a sub category of NZ politicians). One solution could be to create a NZ political activists category (sub divided in political faction) and move them into it; another would be to widen 'NZ politicians by party' to 'NZ politicians by party and ideology' or something, and include NZ neo-Nazis, NZ Marxists, NZ anarchists, Maori seperatists etc. It makes more sense to have all the Marxists in one category rather than divided amongst the many, many communist/marxist/etc parties which I think NZ has had. Or does this make things too complicated again? The problem with the first solution is that there would be some activists who had run for parliament for a minor party and so should maybe still be in the politicians category (and I'd rather not have it so that the only people directly in Category:New Zealand politicians are nutcases), and the problem with the second is that a whole lot of people who aren't politicians would end up in the politicians category. --Helenalex 09:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Under Category:New Zealand politicians by party I have created 'activist' subcategories for each party, which will include unsuccessful candidates, founders, important advisors, party officials and anyone else who played an important role in the party but never became an MP. I found that this worked better, and was simpler, than having seperate 'candidate' categories. For the smaller parties, I have just moved the entire category from NZ politicians to NZ politicians by party. --Helenalex 02:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Phew... It's basically done, although some of the categories are not as populated as they could be (Category:Independent MPs of New Zealand, Category:Local political office-holders in New Zealand and Category:Members of the Cabinet of New Zealand in particular). It turns out there was already an activist category, so I made it a subcat of politicians and threw all the more-activists-than-politicians into it. There was already a Cabinet members category, so I stuck with that rather than making an executive council one. The main categories are Category:New Zealand politicians and Category:Public office-holders in New Zealand. --Helenalex 10:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand that there are MPs that participate in cross party collaborations. In the past this has been all Auckland MPs together, but they failed to get going. There is a long established cross party committee for Amnesty International. I guess there might be others. How do we see these being represented in wiki? —F^red11⁴ 07:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Not everything has to be represented in categories. Individual cross party collaborations might be worth a paragraph in 48th New Zealand Parliament and similar, and the concept in New Zealand House of Representatives.-gadfium 08:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, unless it's notable, there doesn't need to be a category for it. Incidentally, there is already a Maori politicians category, which I suppose represents a major category which cuts across party affiliation. There might be scope for a 'politicians by region' category, but I think there would be problems working out the boundaries. --Helenalex 09:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Sue Bradford bill

Just wanted to remind editors to take care with the wording in relation to the controversial Sue Bradford bill. We don't currently appear to cover this in much detail in any article but it is mentioned to some extent in a number including Sue Bradford, Corporal punishment, Spanking & Brian Donnelly. In all these cases, it suggested the bill will outlaw smacking/spanking/corporal punishment (or there has been a debate about this). As I'm sure most people who have been following the debate know, several noteable supporters (including obviously Sue Bradford and Helen Clark) have argued that this is an inaccurate characterisation of the bill. Therefore it is not NPOV to suggest this is what the bill does. Instead, it is most neutral IMHO to say the bill removes the provision allowing parents to use resonable force in correcting their children. This may be a bit long-winded and technical and anyone who thinks they have a better wording are welcome to try. But it seems to me to be the best solution since it's something most sides will agree is what the bill does. Any further discussion of what the bill does can be left to a specific article (whether about the bill or about smacking in NZ) where we can present both POVs neutrally. Nil Einne 12:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Māori Television and Māori Television Service

Is there any reason why we have the two articles on what looks like the same subject? Both articles are kinda messy, but the MTS one particularly so Kahuroa 04:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like MT is the station and MTS is the official body behind it. I think MTS should be turned into a paragraph of MT. --Helenalex 05:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, would be best to merge them - Shudda ^talk 06:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree too - I thought as much (ie Station/Official body) - if MTS had multiple stations and functions then there might be some value in separate articles, but not at the mo. Kahuroa 08:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Meetups in May?

Angela will be in NZ, 9-11 May. Probably on Wikia business, but some of us are in both camps and would like to meet her anyway.

Aucklanders can sort out their own meeting, if any, again. But is this at last the excuse for an Absolutely Positively MediaWiki Meetup in or near the capital?

Robin Patterson 12:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Duplication?

Any thoughts on Te Kooti and Te Kooti's War. Kahuroa 19:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that and someone with the time should amalgamate them. I have been working on this most interesting fellow over the past 4 days or so. Rua Kenana Hepetipa. He claims he was the prophesized successor to Te Kooti. Mombas 12:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Orcon Internet Limited

Can somebody have a look at this please? There is a staff member editing the page and it's getting a bit non-NPOV in places. I've reverted some of the stuff like lists of awards (more than once) but he's claiming it's all NPOV and I need some other eyes on it. - SimonLyall 07:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I can certainly see why you'd be suspicious of this, seeing the 'upbeat' language and the orginator. However, I find your deletion of the awards problematic. Surely they are easily checked, and a standard way of asserting notability? MadMaxDog 09:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is the likes of Finalist for best ISP include all of the largest five to seven ISPs in the country, 23rd and 49th Fastest Growing Company in New Zealand are a little down the field and the other awards arn't that hot. The other top 5 ISPs could all make similar lists of awards. As for notibility, they are 4th or so largest ISP in NZ, no need for list of awards to back that up - SimonLyall 09:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Whitcoulls

I'm fairly certian that I want to propose a merge between Whitcoulls and Whitcombe and Tombs, but I can't decide which direction. dramatic 19:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say merge W&T into Whitcoulls, since its the one people are the most familiar with. --Helenalex 23:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Whitcoulls being the current name should certainly stay. There's a case to be made for a separate article at W&T, since they were a company involved in a greater range of activity than Whitcoulls currently are, but I wouldn't object to a merge into Whitcoulls. The Dunedin fire needs a date!-gadfium 23:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think some case could be made for working up a little more on Coulls Somerville Wilkie as well. --Limegreen 23:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep separate. Whitcoulls was a merger of W&T and CSW, both formerly independent with long histories. Robin Patterson 23:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability for Radio/Television presenters

What are our notability criteria for radio and television presenters, journalists etc? e.g. Toni Marsh. I have previously nominated articles on TV journalists for deletion on the basis that being a journalist is just another job, and being a fairly public one doen't make a great difference. For example, most policemen or doctors come into contact with thousands of people during their careers, but that doesn't make them notable enough that we create Wikipedia articles on all of them. Obviously there are those who are notable due to length of career, controversy etc. - e.g. John Hawkesby, Judy Bailey, Paul Holmes, Jim Hickey - so where should we draw the line? dramatic 09:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the problem? The best criteria is still if other sources report on THEM or not? A quick drive-by mention in one line doesn't count though. Does the article talk about them specificially, not only in passing? MadMaxDog 09:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

A rule of thumb would be whether a significant proportion of New Zealanders would recognise their name or picture. For Toni Marsh, I think this is true. For someone like John Hudson (New Zealand) (who was a personal friend of mine back in the early 80s), I'm not sure - while he's been around for a long time, a lot fewer people watch the news magazine programs he appears on than watch the main weather bulletin. The clincher comes with finding reliable sources. There are more relevant Google hits for Marsh than for Hudson (restricting hits to NZ sites only - the raw figures show more for Hudson but its a common name), although a lot of the hits for Marsh are from blog and fan sites, not reliable sources. I think it would be possible to find reliable independent sources on both, but it might take some digging and looking at archives of print media, and in practice, this isn't likely to happen. The present Hudson article is doing no harm; the Marsh article needs most of the fluff trimmed out of it. I'm hoping the originator will come back to do so.-gadfium 20:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Any not considered encyclopaedic would be most welcome on the New Zealand Wikia. Robin Patterson 00:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)