@Giantflightlessbirds: Hi, I seek some advice and direction please. I would like to use some photos of coastal erosion from Granity in the proposed article outlined here. There are some useful photos in the NIWA report to West Coast Regional Council - https://envirolink.govt.nz/assets/Envirolink/203-wcrc22CoastalErosionGranity-final.pdf. No doubt the Regional Council has many of their own. I note the $3.6 million PGF project to reinforce coastal protection for the State Highway north of Granity/Ngakawau. There must also be good photos underlying those proposals. Who should I approach that will likely give me the best response in terms of releasing photos ?
I am considering creating a new article on Coastal Hazards in New Zealand. This will reference the numerous publications and new stories already available about the impacts of the sea on coastal properties. The article will include significant references to the December 2017 Ministry for the Environment policy framework document: Coastal Hazards and climate change: Guidance for local government.
The article will include references to well known coastal erosion/flooding problems (eg Granity, Matataa etc)
It will not extensively cover sea level rise, since this is well covered already in the existing article Climate change in New Zealand.
The photos in the NIWA report are presumably all by Doug Ramsey unless otherwise noted, and are All Rights Reserved, so you'd need to talk to the client, West Coast Regional Council. Unfortunately I haven't yet met or communicated with anyone from WCRC, so can't get you started. Be prepared to explain what Creative Commons is, the 1994 Copyright Act, and how OTRS approval in Wikimedia Commons works… It seriously might be easier to just take the photos yourself, if you're on the West Coast. I won't be up Granity way for a little while or I'd do it, but can photograph anything down Hokitika way. But it would be nice to build a relationship with WCRC and get them to consider releasing lots of images. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 00:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Schwede66:. Hi, thanks for indicating that you could offer some support for upgrading this article. (I believe it only warrants "C" class quality at this stage because it is significantly out of date in many areas). Completely updating this article is a substantial task, and so I propose you pick one or two sections that you think would be good to start with, and I will choose other ones.
General - many citations are 8 years old or more. All need to be tested and replaced if they are now dead links.
Lead - leave updating till the end
Infobox - update statistics - fresh data from ref [1] Done
History - consider splitting this off into a separate article
Regulation and policy section - change title - perhaps to Government energy policy, since Regulation isn't really covered at present (although it is worth a small section on its own) rework to restore chronological order if possible, add content about the latest government objectives for renewable energy, and update references
Electricity Market section - update existing citations (if possible) and add more
Generation - one major issue here is whether to retain the 2014 tables of generation split by South Island/North Island, since it appears data is no longer published giving this split. If that proves correct on further investigation, I currently favour deleting the 2014 tables (since they can't be maintained and are already 6 years out of date). Need to update the graph of annual electricity generation by fuel source, to add one more year. I note the thumbnail graph of installed capacity - finishes at 2014. This needs replacing with fresh data from Table 7 of the spreadsheet that is downloadable from the MBIE site [2]. Done
Fossil fuels - needs significant review and updating, with new citations, to include at least brief mention of gas turbine units at Mckee and Huntly, the decommissioning of two ?? thermal units at Huntly, and the controversy over continuing to burn coal in the remaining two (esp in the 12 months to June 2021 when hydro inflows were low).
Transmission - section on Existing grid needs updating to briefly mention work to upgrade the South Island network to be able to shift more power north when Tiwai Pt smelter closes down
Distribution - Add content about regulation of distribution. Done. It would be useful to introduce a new section for "Direct connect" loads, so that these are discussed separately from the conventional distribution networks. The closure of Tiwai Point Aluminium Smelter smelter needs to be covered in the Direct connect section. New citations needed.
Isolated areas - merge in content about diesel generation as appropriate. Done Add citations if they can be found readily.
Consumption - update all statistics to 2020. Discuss closure of Tiwai Point and the Tasman Mill at Kawerau. Add something about the potential impact on consumption of the electrification of transport. See the Transpower discussion document: [3]. There will no doubt be other references available on this topic.
Some of the more difficult issues may be deciding what to do with content and references where the links are permanently dead. Any help with updating this article will be greatly appreciated. Marshelec (talk) 08:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hardly ever drive in the city. This morning I did and being stuck in traffic (ok, I suppose I was the traffic), this is what I listened to. Very interesting. I'll work it in. Consumption interests me as a topic anyway. Schwede6607:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Schwede66:. Thanks, it was an interesting interview. As it happens, I know the person from PowerSwitch who was being interviewed. For the article, I think that we could consider a new section (perhaps separate from Consumption), where we present retail electricity pricing information, and discuss affordability - and supplier switching. One reference source is the Electricity Price Review of 2019. I will search out other references on pricing, affordability and switching behaviour. I noted that at the end of the interview, the speaker talked about the need for cross-subsidies to help deal with the inherently high costs of distribution in remote regions with small populations. Interestingly, this same issue of supporting smaller remote communities with the costs of infrastructure has also come up in discussions of the future for the 3 waters sector (where small communities simply can't afford to cover the full costs of bringing their water supply systems up to the national standard for delivery of safe drinking water). It is not clear to me how cross-subsidies might be arranged in the electricity sector. The underlying problem of the 28 (or is it 29) distribution companies seems just too difficult to resolve, given that several of them have been partly or fully privatised, and many others are owned by Trusts that would probably strongly resist amalgamation.
@Subodh Vishwakarma: Hi, I have posted a more detailed comment on Draft:Pace Hospitals. Wikipedia policies require notability to be established with reference to a significant number of independent sources. Content should be supported by reliable sources. As a rough guide, even a brief new article should have at least 6 citations of sources that contain significant coverage of the subject. Here is one example of an article about a hospital that has a large number of citations: Middlemore Hospital. This article is far from perfect and is only rated Start class (although I think it should be upgraded to C class), but it does show what is expected in terms of encyclopaedic content, and support from independent and reliable sources. I am not in a good position myself to find sources about the PACE hospitals in India, but if you can find some additional sources and add these to the article, I am happy to look at the draft again. Marshelec (talk) 09:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MurielMary: Hi, can you give me a second opinion on this one please ? Draft:Barbara Rossi (engineer) Many aspects of the draft are good, but I have found several statements in the draft that are not supported when you check the citation. I have added a Failed verification template for the ones I have checked so far that didn't support the content. There are other issues with citations - there are references to a journal / magazine published via issu. However, no page number is given, and it is hard work searching through a large number of pages to verify a statement. Many citations need to be expanded to meet normal standards. A significant number of citations of the same source also need to be merged. The subject of the article appears highly notable, and I recall that the AFC instructions say that if the article would probably survive an AFD process, then you should accept it. But it doesn't seem right accepting a biographical article with Failed verifications, and other citation problems. What would you do ? Marshelec (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the statements that fail verification should be removed or verified before moving the draft to mainspace as this is a bio of a living person. I would decline the draft and give this advice to the submitter. 49.224.92.148 (talk) 03:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting year of birth info in Wikidata with citations
@DrThneed: I hope you can help me with a relatively simple question about referencing year of birth for a entry about a person in Wikidata. It is for D:Q117871751. In the article Andréa McBride, I have used the template for birth based on age as at date. There is one source that says she met her half-sister when she was 16, and another that says they met in 1999. There is also a different source that says she was aged 37 in 2019.[6]. What is the best way of providing this supporting information in Wikidata ? Marshelec (talk) 01:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marshelec: Wikidata has no trouble holding multiple values, so what you would do is add both dates with their relevant sources (I see there is an unreferenced statement currently on the item for the value 1983, so you can just add the appropriate reference to that, and another statement with 1982 and the source). Because there can only be one "true" value for someone's birthdate, as soon as you have two values, Wikidata asks you to rank one of them as "preferred" (that allows for dates with a year value and a precise date, for instance, which might be supported by different sources and where neither is actually incorrect. Do you know about ranks? they're the tiny little arrows on the left by each value). If you cannot determine which year is more likely, then I would leave the ranks unchanged and wait for a future source to clarify. If more precision is forthcoming, you would probably then change the incorrect year to deprecated rank along with a "reason for deprecation" qualifier. DrThneed (talk)
@Grutness: Kia ora, I understand that you are regularly involved in managing categories for Wikiproject New Zealand. I think I have found an anomaly that needs sorting out, but I seek your feedback first. I note that the category:en:Category:Ramsar sites in New Zealand contains one sub-category: en:Category:Firth of Thames. I think this is a mistake, because many of the articles within the Firth of Thames category do not relate to the Ramsar site. I see that the page Firth of Thames is included in the Category for Ramsar sites. This is appropriate, but the category:Firth of Thames should not be included. Do you agree ? Marshelec (talk) 08:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm. This sort of situation is always tricky. As you say, it makes sense for the article to be there, but there are definitely two schools of thought about the subcategory. Personally, I agree with you that it probably shouldn't be there, but I can see why someone would have put it there - and there seem to be precedents in other subcategories of Category:Ramsar sites by country: Category:Lake Geneva, Category:Loch Lomond, and Category:San Francisco Bay are all treated in the same way despite also having a lot of non Ramsar-related content. I don't know much about the way ecoregion articles are categorised, but if those other ctegories are treated this way it might be best to leave this one as is. Grutness...wha?13:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another idea for a new article: CentrePort, Wellington
@Wainuiomartian: Hi, here is another idea for an article that we could probably work on together. There is currently no article about the Wellington port company, CentrePort. It seems to keep a fairly low profile, but hopefully there are enough sources to create a basic article, separate from Wellington Harbour. There are also historical issues about earthquake damage to the port, and buildings on port land that will be worth covering. There is also the tragic death of a port worker in 2017 and the fines of $800,000. [7]I thought about the port company today in reflecting on the recent public discourse about the need for an ocean-going tug. Perhaps there may also be mentions of statements by the harbourmaster about various topics (I presume the harbourmaster is an employee ?). I found that the company is totally owned by local government - 76.9% by GWRC and the rest by Horizons RC. [8]. Perhaps there may some accountability documents we might be able to find via the local government ownership ? Thoughts ? Marshelec (talk) 06:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it okay if I start adding to your draft? Also, the Wellington Harbour Board article has pretty awful grammar and needs fixing, I think.Wainuiomartian (talk) 04:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wainuiomartian:, By all means ! I have been distracted with loads of other things, so haven't made any more headway on the CentrePort draft article. By the way, I have probably got a bit carried away with the history of the Waiwhetu Stream, but am still working on expanding this draft: Draft:Waiwhetū Stream. Have a look, and let me know what you think :). Marshelec (talk) 04:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wainuiomartian Thanks for the great content you have already added to the draft article. I have added some small bits today, about Seaview wharf and Burnham wharf. Thinking more about this article, I suggest we need a history section. Some of the work is already done in the articles: Reclamation of Wellington Harbour, and Wellington Harbour Board (and there may be others I have not found as yet). I suggest we create a history section, and then use sub-headings and "main" templates to link to those two articles, and aim for an overview of the history of the port. One of the interesting points could be the introduction of containerised shipping, and the installation of container cranes. I will look into that, but in the meantime, what do you think ? Should we go ahead with a history section in this article, or perhaps create a whole new article about the history of the port ? P.S. We also need to link to Te Whanganui-a-Tara. Thoughts ? Marshelec (talk) 05:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ya, I'm now free for the full day and so will be heading down to He Matapihi Molesworth Library on Saturday morning to spend the day working on Women in Architecture. Hope to see you there! Ambrosia10 (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ambrosia10: Great, I will plan to be there at opening time around 9:00am. I will need to leave a bit before 12:00am (and I think they close at 1:00pm anyway). See you tomorrow. Marshelec (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've just talked to User:DrThneed and she's put a short list of people they are likely to work on during the Dunedin event ie Jackie Gillies, Alison Sleigh/Shepherd, Monica Barham/Ford, Ros Empson, Mary Edwards, Ann Strong. She says it was quite hard finding people with Dunedin connections so if we could steer away from those she'd be grateful. I too am hoping to be at the library around 9am so I'll see you then. Ambrosia10 (talk) 01:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Query about guidebook series representation in Wikidata
@DrThneed: Hi, I have another (dumb) query about how to represent things in Wikidata. Please see: d:Q118106022. My question is how to add a parameter that states this booklet is Guidebook 11 in a series of guidebooks. I am working on improvements to an article that includes descriptions of the (fascinating) geology of the Red Rocks on the south coast of Wellington, and the reviewer of my draft material has insisted that I should add Guidebook 11 to the citation - so I want to put this into Wikidata if possible (hopefully in an attribute that will be rendered in the cite Q citation in Wikipedia). See my draft here: User:Marshelec/sandbox2. I am not sure about the cataloguing convention that I should use for the Guidebook series number of this publication. Any help will be greatly appreciated. :) .Marshelec (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a dumb question at all, @Marshelec. There is a Wikiproject Books where you can find some clues but it's always good to ask if you aren't sure. The answer is that you need an 'overarching' or parent Wikidata item for the series, and then you use 'has part' (from the parent item) and 'part of' (for the child item). You can also use 'followed by' and 'follows' on the child items. Here's an example https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1388502DrThneed (talk) 08:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Schwede66: Kia ora. I would like your guidance about how best to proceed with reviewing a draft article for creation where the author has declared a CoI. See: Draft:Wildlife Drones and User:DLathamus. The author is the founder of the company and main person behind the product. The draft article itself seems reasonable (albeit that it is rather "raw" could use a fair bit of tidying up). Some content is not supported with citations. There are a couple of expressions that could be seen as promotional, but overall the tone seems reasonably neutral. There are plenty of sources (and most appear to be independent - ie not just press releases about the company and products). However, Ref 11 is a Primary source. Ref 19 needs changing to an older archived version - the current version is not relevant. Ref 14 is a dead link. Ref 20 is an interview, so a primary source. Ref 21 doesn't work. Ref 22 doesn't work. My main question is how to proceed given the CoI ?? I haven't come across this before, so seek your advice. Marshelec (talk) 08:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tēnā koe e hoa, I take it you've read WP:COIRESPONSE. Beyond the generic advice there, things better be squeaky-clean. I suggest the following steps:
Anything that's not an independent RS should go, unless it provides totally uncontroversial context.
Refs that are dead and not retrievable need to go.
Any content that's no longer supported by those refs needs to be removed.
If the article is then in a fit state, publish it.
Let DLathamus know that from there on in, she can only contribute through the article's talk page (that said, it seems she's totally aware of the rules).
If at any point you don't feel comfortable with publishing the draft, just ask other editors to come and have a look. Schwede6608:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Princes Wharf, Hobart, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
@Schwede66: Kia ora. I have a question about whether a published webinar could be a reliable source. I am trying to improve the article Westland petrel. Here is a bit of context. The only breeding site for Westland petrels is a small area of steep densely forested hills south of Punakaiki, and towards the north end of the Barrytown Flats. There has been a renewed application for resource consent for large scale open cast mining of ilmenite on the Barrytown Flats, close to the flight path of these birds to and from their breeding sites, and this is of concern to conservationists. There is a wide range of issues of environmental issues arising from the mining proposal (going well beyond the impact on Westland petrels). Last night, there was a webinar provided by Forest & Bird, as part of their Centennial Speaker Series. [9]. It included a presentation from Bruce Stuart-Menteath, a recognised expert on Westland petrels. There were some observations about the behaviour of the birds that he discussed during the talk that should be covered in the article, but that I have not been able to find in published sources. These include some quite simple but important observations - eg that the birds circle off-shore at dusk before approaching the colonies and crashing through the forest in the dark, and that the adults leaving the colony to feed typically do so before dawn.
I have been told by Forest & Bird that once they deal with a technical problem, they intend to publish the full webinar, so that others who did not attend last night can view it. My questions are:
in principle, can I cite a published webinar recording as a source ?
if so, given that Forest & Bird is an advocacy organisation, can I still cite the recorded webinar as a source (esp if I just focus on the factual observations of bird behaviour outlined above, and not the advocacy in relation to the mining proposal)
if so, other than striving to maintain WP:NPOV, are there any other steps I should take, given that the webinar as a whole is focussed on advocacy against the mining proposal ?
I would suggest that it's not relevant that Forest & Bird was organising the event or that they will be publishing the webinar. What matters is who the speaker was. A subject-matter expert should always be quotable. Template:Cite AV media is the citation template that you can use for this. Schwede6608:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think there's potential for an article or list of wharves in Wellington? Some have disappeared with reclamation, some may have interesting stories, like this? or this? Wainuiomartian (talk) 06:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is useful information about the history of the Lambton Harbour wharves in the publications by NZ Historic Places. See pages 50, 53, 54 here:[10]. I think a list would be useful, and might allow us to avoid too much distracting detail in other articles. I wonder if a table format might be useful, with one wharf per row ? It would give some supplementary information for each wharf and links in each row ? Whatever format is chosen, we will need to ensure good linkages between the proposed list of wharves and the articles: CentrePort Wellington, Wellington Harbour Board and Reclamation of Wellington Harbour. I have also found Te Whanganui-a-Tara. This overlaps with other content, and I haven't yet thought through whether anything should be done about this. Would you just focus on wharves in Lambton Harbour ? Other wharves in Wellington Harbour in addition to Lambton Harbour that we could consider include Days Bay and Eastbourne wharves, Matiu / Somes Island, Seatoun and Petone wharf, and there is also Seaview, Burnham and Miramar, and the Evans Bay slipway wharf (and there was an older Point Howard wharf). If you feel like going ahead with a list article about the wharves, please go right ahead. Are you comfortable with making tables ? They are a bit of a faff to create, but can produce a good outcome :) Marshelec (talk) 07:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I started a draft article. I started with a table but decided it wasn't working. Too many of the early wharves had multiple name changes and some of the sources I was looking at contradicted each other. So I've set it up as an article, without naming all the small 19th century wharves. I will make sure it links to related articles. Have a look and let me know what you think. Re Te Whanganui a Tara - can it be deleted, with the info put into the Wellington Harbour page? I've also just remembered that the Wellington Harbour Board page needs work. Wainuiomartian (talk) 04:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wainuiomartian:. Looking at Te Whanganui-a-Tara, on balance, I think that this article needs to remain and not be merged, because (a) it gives background on the name, and most importantly (b) it explains that the name is also used for the place (ie Wellington), not just the harbour. Perhaps we can add a "Further" template or similar into some selected articles that use the name, linking to this article. However, the basic wikilink it probably also still fine.Marshelec (talk) 23:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marshelec advice needed please. My article on wharves in Wellington is getting quite long, so I am back to the idea of a general article with a table (with construction, purpose, a photo, notes) and then smaller separate articles about most of the wharves that aren't covered in suburb articles. Is that a better way to go? Wainuiomartian (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! You left an AfC comment on my draft Draft:Grace Wang (academic), and I replied to it, but I'm not sure you saw it. If you did see the reply but chose to to respond, that's fine, but I just wanted to be sure you have seen and can take a look at it:
Social media should not be used as sources.
Per WP:FACEBOOK, it can be used as a "self-published, primary source," which the link used fits. It is not necessary anyway, so I could remove it and still have the article be fully referenced, which I might do, or substitute it for something else.
The year of birth/age in the infobox (from an age as at date template) must be supported by an inline citation.
*I have cited her birthdate in the infobox.
Finally, it is not clear to me that the current version of the draft article demonstrates how the subject meets the high expectations for notability of academics set out in WP:NPROF...
I think it's borderline. A tenured Full Prof. does not in itself confer notability, but shows that the university sees some value in her work. NPROF 7a states "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark." Being quoted in PBS NewsHour is definitely not "local news media" and being quoted as an expert in high-quality national news is definitely an honor, but it's among the only news quotations I found.
On 5 June 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lucy Greenish, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Lucy Greenish was the first woman in New Zealand to become a registered architect? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lucy Greenish. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Lucy Greenish), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hey, thanks for all your reviewing for the Bee Card (payment card) article. I was just wondering, as someone who has more local NZ experience than I do, would you agree with me that Christchurch/Timaru's Metrocard isn't notable enough to warrant its own article? I mean I can barely find any information online about when/how it was introduced in the first place. But, I'm all ears. Fork99 (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Metrocard was New Zealand's first public transport payment card, introduced by ECan in September 2003. I've given a number of presentations on public transport and the introduction of the Metrocard is mentioned in this one. Is it notable? I'd say yes. Will it be difficult to show notability? Yes, due to it being so long ago that you will find very little online, but not long enough that PapersPast covers it. A good source of Christchurch info from the early 2000s is http://archived.ccc.govt.nz/ and I believe that Google doesn't index it. Type in a search term "Metrocard site:archived.ccc.govt.nz/" in a browser's address bar and you'll find a few things that the city council had to say about it. I'm pretty sure that some of the sources that I've used for writing the National Ticketing Solution article will talk about the Metrocard. Schwede6605:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fork99: Hi, I went to ProQuest and searched for Christchurch Metrocard. There were 87 results just in that archive alone. Although many of these listings in ProQuest will be trivial mentions, and a few may be off-topic, I am sure that there are still sufficient worthwhile sources to allow an basic article to be created, just from that archive alone. You have probably used ProQuest before, but if not, here is an example of a citation calling up a ProQuest entry: <ref name="brook">{{Cite news |last=Brook |first=Ellen |date=6 January 2004 |title=Swan around Greytown |work=Dominion Post |id={{ProQuest|338026172}}}}</ref>. The magic number in the ProQuest template comes from the middle section of the url of the article in ProQuest that you want to cite. The citation produces an active link to ProQuest that doesn't require the user to login :). You can access ProQuest through various channels. I gain access via Wellington City libraries, using my library card number. I hope this helps. Marshelec (talk) 06:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Schwede66: Kia ora, I seek your opinion about an article title. I have created this: Draft:The White Swan Hotel, Greytown. However, before I move it into main space, I need to resolve whether or not to have "The" in the title. I have found various sorts of guidance, but it is still a bit confusing. See: WP:DEFINITE, and WP:THE. Looking for precedents, I found White Swan (disambiguation), where there are several hotels where "The" is part of the article title. Similarly with: White Swan Inn. For the hotel in Greytown, the proprietors use "The" in their website url, and in their email address. Usage on their website is slightly inconsistent. The sources I have cited generally don't describe the hotel as "The White Swan" where this comes in the middle of a sentence, although I don't think this is necessarily determinative. For what it is worth, the Wikidata item that already exists is labelled The White Swan Hotel (see Q:Q111870084). I am thinking of making the new article title just "White Swan Hotel, Greytown", but I am still unsure. What do you think ? Marshelec (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Common name should apply. If it is not entirely clear, move it to whatever your gut feeling suggests. Create a redirect from the other name. Then copy this discussion onto the talk page. If someone has strong feelings, they can continue this discussion. Schwede6607:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On 14 June 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Walter Nash, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Walter Nash's 14 years as New Zealand's minister of finance is the longest continuous time that anyone has ever served in that post? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Walter Nash. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Walter Nash), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
@Schwede66:. Kia ora, could you give me a second opinion please about Draft:Lloyd Godman. I originally declined it at AFC, and since then the nominator has done some improvements. I have also made a few minor improvements, but I am still uncertain whether there is sufficient in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG notability requirements. The sources generally don't give an extensive biography or major review of his work, although some have several paragraphs. However, the subject does seem to meet the test in clause 4 of the guide WP:Artist. Other guidance at WP:AFCPURPOSE indicates that if it seems likely that the article (when published) would survive a nomination for deletion at WP:AFD, then you should go ahead and accept it, albeit that there are multiple issues needing to be resolved. I am a bit uncertain, but leaning towards accepting it as is. What do you think ? Marshelec (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a cursory look through the sources. There are three newspaper articles that, in my view, go deep enough (NZ Herald, The Age, Sydney Morning Herald). I also agree about WP:ARTIST and WP:AFCPURPOSE. Articles don't have to be perfect and citation needed tags aren't a showstopper. It'll clean itself up over time. I'd go ahead with publishing as is. Schwede6609:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
List articles for earthquakes in Auckland and Northland
I have expressed some reservations about these list articles based on notability (availability of sources) for the article topic. At present, the article relies to a high degree to factual information sourced from Geonet - a primary source. See: WP:PRIMARY. There is little that supports "interpretation".
It has occurred to me that perhaps there is an alternative of capturing each earthquake in this list as a Wikidata ID, and then being able to produce reports and/or graphs from Wikidata that visualise the data. This would allow re-use of the hard work done by the editor so far, without the draft articles needed to be progressed, and in Wikidata there would not be the same notability concerns that affect the Wikipedia article.
However, I have no experience at present with bulk uploads to Wikidata, or with reporting. What might be possible ? At the higher end, I envisage a time-lapse video looking over the geographic region, with earthquakes "popping up" as time moves on. However, a more basic tabular report would probably still be OK.
So my questions are:
what do you think of the idea of transferring the information in the lists to Wikidata ?
it is likely that a new editor attempting to do this would find it rather challenging. In principle, I might be interested in this as a learning exercise for me, but I would need close guidance. If you think the idea has merit, would you be willing to coach me ? If you are too committed, who else should I approach ?
I could possibly send an invitation to the editor to collaborate in the process, so that we both learn at once. If you are able to help, would you support that ?
Hi @Marshelec What an interesting proposal! There is definitely potential to capture earthquake information in Wikidata - there is a certain amount already there (here's a Sparql query for all things that are instance of earthquake https://w.wiki/72Vg, there are currently just under 2500). I don't know much about this sort of data, but I could certainly help out with coaching you through modelling and uploading (and not a prerequisite, but just so I know, have you used OpenRefine before?). The first step is probably to look at how existing earthquake items are modelled ie what properties and qualifiers do they use? Is it possible with existing properties to capture all the information you would want? Are there relevant online sources/databases which have identifiers you could use? (Geonet urls look like identifiers to me, but it doesn't look to me as if anyone has proposed that as a property in Wikidata yet, although there are identifiers for some other earthquake databases there. If you do go ahead with the project, it would be something to consider that would assist with linking the data externally through more than just references.)
You do need to consider notability to some degree, even in Wikidata. The criteria that applies is "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity that can be described using serious and publicly available references." (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Notability) Geonet would probably qualify there, but defining the parameters of what you include/exclude and why is useful - the cutuff at 2.0 seems arbitrary to an outsider, is there are a reason for it e.g. that's what most people would be able to detect?
Also I am not sure what animated visualisations currently exist but once the data is in Wikidata there is at the very least the possibility of creating maps, and very likely visualisation tools do exist or could be made to do what you are imagining.
Kia ora! The Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand User Group invites you to read about the call for applications for a Wikipedian-at-Large for Aotearoa New Zealand in 2024. Group members are happy to explain the process and discuss ideas with interested editors.
@Paora:. Kia ora. Thanks for the improvements you made to the article Violet Bowring. The article was created by a person who came along to a Wikipedia Open Day that I hosted at Wadestown Library. I have been assisting her with getting the article into a state where it could be published. She is a good researcher, but has relatively little experience with Wikipedia so far, and found creating citations somewhat challenging. I have not worked on many biographies myself, so although I helped her out with various aspects, there is still much for me to learn about good practice in presentation of biographies. Your improvements have been instructive, and I hope to be able to use the presentation in this article as a guide for future work. :) In the meantime, could I ask you to review the article quality assessment. Do you think it warrants C class ? Marshelec (talk) 10:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive
Hi, could I trouble you to have a quick look at my GA review of White Diamonds, just to make sure I haven't made any obvious sorts of blunders, and any advice or tips you might have? This is my third GA review, and I have a sense that it isn't really comprehensive enough, and might be a fail. Also, the nominator has not been active since May, so I might not get a response; hopefully they're just on a summer holiday! Cheers, — Jon (talk) 00:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonathanischoice: Hi Jon, I agree with your assessment. There needs to be more extensive coverage in this article, given the claimed sales and popularity. For instance, what was the reception following the launch (what did reviewers say about it, and how does it compare with other fragrances ?). In New Zealand the perfume spray (on its own) is currently sold in 100ml containers. What other packaging/ sizes have been on the market ? I note that the range appears to include gift sets with multiple products. See: [11]. The product range seems relevant to me and should be covered. I think scope of coverage is the main issue that prevents this article meeting the GA criteria. Also, the lead is inadequate and too short. I support all your detailed points of feedback and also have other minor niggles. I don't think Legacy is the right heading title. Also, every citation to a paywalled site such as NY Times should have the url-access=subscription parameter added. I suggest you fail it. I also note the benchmarks. It is significantly short of the standard of other perfume articles that have been rated GA. Marshelec (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this; I've failed the review but I've just realised I didn't cite your assistance (can I sneak that in even though it says not to edit it?!) — Jon (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another question, do you think I could nominate a couple of other articles I've been working on, specifically soprano trombone, and serpent (instrument)? I'd like to also get the NZ wine regions reviewed too, but I don't think they're quite up to snuff yet. I've been a bit busy this week but I'm looking forward to getting stuck into Matiu / Somes Island tonight.—Jon (talk) 22:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DrThneed:. Hi, I have another question arising from my inexperience with Wikidata. I have just created a new Wikidata item: d:Q121102530. My question is how to add the name of the photographer (in this case the husband of the author). Sorry to ask dumb questions like this. :).Marshelec (talk) 04:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries - in this instance, you want P110 illustrator on the book. And of course if you have a source for them being husband and wife, you want to link the people entries with P 26 (spouse). Tip: to search for Wikidata properties, you can type "P:" followed by a string into the search box, and pull up properties with that string in the label/alias. Alternatively find a famous example of whatever you are trying to model and look up how it's been done. DrThneed (talk) 06:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DrThneed: Oh dear, I have messed up. I created a new ID for Robert Burgess (photographer) d:Q121117591 and was busy linking that to Linda, and then found that there was already an ID for Robert Burgess (photographer) - and checking the identifiers, he is NZ and generally the right age so it is him d:Q112425432. I have now created the spouse linkages between the two IDs, with references to the book where Linda states that Robert is her husband. What do I do now with the duplicate ID I created in error d:Q121117591 ? Can I get it deleted or do I just try to blank it and perhaps re-use it for something else ? Marshelec (talk) 08:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, never blank or reuse a QID! We all create a duplicate accidentally at some point. But for people like authors, photographers, anyone who might be in a library or museum catalogue or collection, you should suspect that they are already there and have a good hunt around first. Anyway, the solution is to merge the items (the general rule is to merge the newer item into the older one, and then check for any duplicated statements that need fixing). Basically it creates a redirect for one of them. I just merged these two for you, but if you check in your preferences you should find an option to turn on the merge gadget (at the top of the gadget list). Be very careful with it though, unmerging an incorrect merge is much much harder because everything that links to it needs redirecting. DrThneed (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to review the Malvern railway station article for GA status- much appreciated! I currently have 5ish other articles that were rejected (for the same reasons) that I need to fix before renominating them, and I'll make sure to use this feedback to improve them to a decent level. Best wishes for your future wikipedia edits! HoHo3143 (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HoHo3143: Thanks for your response, and acknowledging my efforts in reviewing the GA nomination of Malvern railway station, Melbourne. I would be willing to review another of your articles, when it is ready. I much prefer helping to get a GA nomination to pass than failing a nomination. Please message me when you have re-nominated one of the articles that currently requires further work. Marshelec (talk) 05:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marshelec thank you for this! This won't be for a while as I've got quite a bit else to do. I currently have one other article waiting to be reviewed (Armadale railway station) which probably has some of the same issues as well as 5 others that need to be fixed before renomination. HoHo3143 (talk) 07:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The August 2023 Good Article Nominations Backlog Drive is at the halfway mark, and has seen incredible progress, dropping the backlog from 638 to 359 unreviewed articles -- a 43.7% reduction in only fifteen days! But we still have over two weeks to go, and there are plenty of articles left to review:
We've gone from 14 nominations 270+ days old and 65 nominations 180+ days old to 2 and 0 respectively. No more articles will reach 270+ status during the drive, and only three more will reach 180+ if unreviewed, so this is your last chance to get the higher age bonuses!
We still have plenty of articles in the 90+ range, but the list is shrinking fast.
Some articles need new reviewers, either because they're officially on second opinion or because the original reviews were deleted or invalidated. You can help prevent these articles from waiting longer!
While there are starting to be clear favourites for the Content Review Medal of Merit, the field is still very open. A late entrant can still pull an upset to get the most reviews in the drive!
And remember: if you've done reviews, you should log them at the backlog drive page for points, so they can be tracked towards your awards at the end.
You have received this message as a participant in the August 2023 Good Article Nominations Backlog Drive who has logged one or no reviews. This is a one-off massmessage. If you wish to opt out of all massmessages, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Hi, Thank you for adding a further citation to the Upper Hutt article! But it is important to note that the first citation you added was a dead link. I tested the link in Firefox and Google Chrome and they appeared dead on my side, maybe the link was active on your side but I'm not sure. I apologise for any inconvenience caused!
@Yvanyblog: Here is a link to the version of the page following my addition of the citation to the Sister cities website: [12]. In this version, the link to the Sister cities website from citation 22 works correctly for me. However, if this one is causing troubles I will add an archive-url, and am sure that the archive site will be accessible to all. Marshelec (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oronsay and MargaretRDonald: Hi, I have been contacted by User:Vandemonian with a request for some support. He is interested in writing a new article about a notable historic building in Hobart. The building was originally known as the Crisp and Gunn building (they may have constructed it), but more recently known as the Forestry Building. It has recently been purchased by the University of Tasmania. See: [13].
Vandemonian contacted me because I had been involved in helping him resolve some difficulties with getting a previous article Princes Wharf, Hobart published earlier this year. I met with him online today, and he has just now created: Draft:Forestry Building, Hobart.
Vandemonian would welcome some specific assistance with suggestions for finding good sources, and particularly images that can be used to illustrate the article. I will ensure he is aware of the large number of sources on Trove about the company Crisp and Gunn (a search for "Crisp and Gunn" Hobart, produced over 2,000 newspaper article hits). There are no images of the building on Trove, as far as I can tell.
He is also interested in further development of editing knowledge and capability. I will try to send him some links to useful editing tutorial videos. I will also send him an invitation to take part in the monthly Aotearoa New Zealand online meetup, but perhaps you know of other online meetups that might be worthwhile.
Could I ask one (or both) of you to offer some support to Vandemonian, and welcome him to the Australian Wikimedia community. I will have a search for images myself, but I don't know the best Australian sources, so you are probably better placed than me. Marshelec (talk) 02:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have belatedly emailed @Vandemonian today, with some suggestions and concerns and will be in Hobart late this year and happy to meet, if that is his location. Apologies for my tardiness. Oronsay (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oronsay: Thanks. I have met online with this user, and he lives in the Blue Mountains, but has connections with Hobart. I have invited him to consider attending the Aotearoa NZ online meetup tomorrow, and will remind him now. Marshelec (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DrThneed:. Hi, I seek your guidance again :). I want to assist an editor with creating a new article about a building complex in Hobart. I have found a useful source about the buildings in a provisional heritage listing at Heritage Tasmania here:
https://heritage.tas.gov.au/Documents/THR12028%20-%20Provisional%20entry%20-%20Datasheet%20and%20CPR.pdf#search=Forestry%20Building At present, the complex is commonly known as the Forestry Building. I have recommended to the editor that a single Wikipedia article is created, with the name: Forestry Building, Hobart. (The University as new owner will no doubt give it a new name in due course, but Forestry Building seems to be the common name at present).
My question is about how best to register this building complex in Wikidata. In this case, there are two separate buildings (offices and workshops) each built in 1923, and then a dome that was built in 1997 to link the two buildings. How do I decide the best way to model this. Is there a way of defining the individual 1923 buildings, and the 1997 addition, and then linking them to a "parent" item that is the larger complex with its own Wikidata ID ? Marshelec (talk) 07:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wainuiomartian: Hi, this morning I have moved the draft Waiwhetū Stream into main space. It is not completed yet - I still have the history to fill in between around 1940 and 2000. However, in the newspaper this morning was a piece about the cleanup and revegetation of the stream, and a notice that the Friends of Waiwhetū Stream group is meeting this coming Sunday at 2:00pm at Pelorus House, Hutt Park to celebrate.See: [14] I hope to be able to go along on Sunday, and perhaps get some contacts to help with further improvement. I thought it was best to publish the article into main space now, to help in promoting it to anyone who is interested. I have made links to the Flock mill article, and linked back to the new article from various pages. In doing so, I was reminded of the poor state of Seaview, Lower Hutt. It needs significant work to remove non-encyclopedic language, add more useful content etc. At some stage, perhaps we could work on that together ?..Marshelec (talk) 01:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kia ora koutou; so good to be a Wikipedian at Large on the West Coast again. • I've been setting up visits and field photography trips to Karamea (Oct 15), Fox Glacier (Oct 2), and Whataroa (Oct 9), and working through the typewritten Whataroa South Westland: Centennial Report 1879–1979 • Great work from Panamitsu creating the Waitangiroto Nature Reserve article, and Paora with Gerhard Mueller and Kere Tutoko (Q122695369). Prosperosity created Wikidata items and Commons categories for most of Hokitika's public sculpture, and I added over 100 photos and more items • Hoping to tag along on a kōtuku tour, but I'm also approaching photographers who've taken good pics of the colony about releasing their work for Commons • We should improve the kōtuku and Waitangiroto River articles with journal articles—and the Whataroa River and Waitangitāhuna River articles could do with a tidy up (there's a great article in Tane about how the former split in two, and the implications for the Waitangiroto) • Coming up are the Glacier Country tourism articles: can I recommend Lynley Hargreaves' new bookVanishing Ice as a reference? • Gillespies Beach Beginnings is recently transcribed and available in Wikisource as well • Keep at it folks, and I'll drop you a line in a week and a bit. — Giantflightlessbirds
@Schwede66:. Hi, thanks for the ping about helpers needed for publishing articles on election night. I expect to be available, and will try to do something to help out. However, I will have been on duty in my other life as a track & field official at Newtown Park for most of Saturday, so I may be a bit weary. I looked at a small sample of the draft articles and was impressed by the huge amount of work that has been done already. Moving the draft articles into main space and activating categories is fairly simple. I will do my best to help. I guess it just needs a bit of judgement about when there is sufficient confidence about results to justify publishing the article for the successful candidate. Is publishing the relevant draft articles all that is needed on the night ? Marshelec (talk) 08:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At least that's the most important part. And if anyone publishes something and the results turn out different, well, it's easy enough to move an article back to draft space. No trouble. Schwede6608:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Addition of climate data to multiple West Coast articles
@Gadfium: I have noted that User talk:Wcmeteorology has been adding/ changing climate data for multiple West Coast articles, including Punakaiki. Karamea and Barrytown. I have not used the NIWA climate database at [15] previously, and cannot immediately verify the information. Also, the user is new, and may not be aware that they should not be marking their contributions as minor. I don't want to be too critical because it seems possible that these contributions are valid, but without being able to verify the source I am uncertain how to respond. Can you give me any pointers for accessing and using the NIWA database ? Any other suggestions for how to respond ? Marshelec (talk) 07:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of Wcmeteorology's edits. I have previously tried and failed to verify climate data at cliflo, and assume that citations to it are correct. The editor might be part of Giantflightlessbird's West Coast taskforce and therefore in good hands. Perhaps the more academic members of WPNZ such as @DrThneed: can look at cliflo.niwa.co.nz and give us some tips on how to use it.-gadfium08:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an area of science I have any experience with. I created a login to have a look at the database, but without knowing the settings used by @Wcmeteorology to extract the data they've cited, it is hard for someone unfamiliar with the database to verify it. I suggest following up with them and checking with @Giantflightlessbirds about whether he knows more. DrThneed (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that user, but edits start with Reefton, and there is a local amateur weather expert in Reefton I met back in 2020; I've messaged them to see if they're responsible. It's not OK to just delete sourced information and replace it with info from a primary source like the NIWA database, especially if it's not easily veritifiable. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.
A bit of a gap since the last postcard, but what a great time we've had with the Wikipedian at Large project in the interim • The highlight has been having Marshall and Lyn join me on the West Coast for a few days, visiting Fox Glacier and Whataroa • We now have good photo collections for the newly-created Waitangiroto Nature Reserve, and a a much improved article with galler • The Whataroa article has been improved with local history and links to the White Herons • We also have much better coverage of Fox Glacier, including new Ngāi Tahu viewing placeTe Kopikopiko o te Waka, and photos of Te Weheka Walkway/Cycleway and the South Side Walkway/Cycleway • Could I get you all to check back through your contributions and add anything extra you've done to the [Progress page as we wrap up • Also—I'm hosting a catch-up meeting on Sunday November 12, 2:30 pm, online at my Whereby chat room. This is a chance to go over anything you'd still like to see improved, talk about how the project went and possibilities for future ones, and announce winners of prizes for most or best contributions. Drop me a line at mikerove.wiki if you can make it (or can't but have ideas about the project) • Thank you all for your contributions, however small, and chat soon. — Giantflightlessbirds
Kia ora M, just tried to "ring" you via Slack but couldn't get you. I don't actually have your phone number. Wanted to discuss mass mailing with you. Schwede6607:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation to an in-person meetup in Mohua / Golden Bay
Golden Bay Air are holding some seats for us until 21 November
Thinking about your summer break? Think about joining other Wikipedians and Wikimedians in Golden Bay / Mohua! Details are on the meetup page. There's heaps of interesting stuff to work on e.g. the oldest extant waka or New Zealand's oldest ongoing legal case. Or you may spend your time taking photos and then upload them.
Golden Bay is hard to get to and the airline flying into Tākaka uses small planes, so we are holding some seats from and to Wellingtonand we are offering attendees a $200 travel subsidy to help with costs.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is 210.54.239.248. I am away from my normal home address and WiFi system, and have been using the AVG Secure VPN. I have turned this off now, but I still get the message that I am blocked from editing.Marshelec (talk) 03:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Procedural decline; it may take a couple of days for the DNS system to update this. If you don't want this to happen again I direct you to WP:IPECPROXY where you can follow the instructions to request IP block exemption via email. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking for a period of 6 months. If you still need an IP block exemption after it expires please file a new request. This will allow you to edit the English Wikipedia through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.
Alexeyevitch(talk) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
@Turnagra and Schwede66: Kia ora. I have made a start today on improvements to Kahurangi National Park. The article was sorely in need of work. I find it surprising that it has attracted so little interest from editors - there have been few significant edits over the past few years, and only two small edits in 2023. The article has received around 6,000 page views in the past 12 months. Not huge - the topic should ideally attract a greater readership, but perhaps with substantial improvements and better linking it will get more reader attention in future. I will try to follow the proposed standard format, and use this as a test-case. Please give me a few days to add more sections before reviewing what I have done so far - it is rough and incomplete at present.Marshelec (talk) 06:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great, thanks for getting stuck in! I might try and take a look at Abel Tasman in the next couple of days then before going back to work next week. I've been meaning to respond to your feedback on the page as well but haven't had a chance yet. Turnagra (talk) 07:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.
Hello, Marshelec!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Marshelec (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wainuiomartian Would you be interested in creating a biography article ? The subject is a road transport planner/engineer, one of the members of the committee of Wikipedia Aotearoa NZ, and a Wikipedia administrator). There are many independently published sources that could be used to support an article about this person, and I could help collate these. However, I am too close to him to write the article myself. Bio articles may not be your thing, but I thought I would ask. Marshelec (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gadfium Hi, I would like to invite your suggestions for regions of New Zealand that could be the focus of a meet-up/ editathon. The recent meetup in Golden Bay was enjoyable and successful. See: WP:Meetup/Mohua / Golden_Bay#Outcomes. This has inspired me to think about other places where there is potential for an in-person meetup and editathon. Ideally, there would be reasonably easy transport to the region of interest, and venues that would be suitable for a group of (say) up to 20. Do you have any suggestions for areas that are clearly in need of improved coverage in Wikimedia platforms ? I thought that because you have worked on so many articles about populated places across the country, you might have a good perspective on regions where the articles are most in need of improvement. One possibility that occurred to me is the Rotorua region. I have done a bit of work on various articles related to the Rotorua area, but I have noted many gaps. I have also noted that the article Tauranga is a bit woeful, given the city is the 5th largest in NZ. I have not surveyed other articles related to that region as yet. Any other thoughts ? Now that Wikimedia Aotearoa NZ has a paid admin person, there is far less burden on volunteers in setting up an event like this. There is also funding available to help towards cost of travel of participants, venue costs and catering. Keen to hear your thoughts. If you prefer to chat about this, let me know and we could have an on-line meeting at a time that suits. Marshelec (talk) 04:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My focus tends to be on small towns or localities, not cities, so I had not noticed the poor state of aspects of the Tauranga article (such as the history section) until I read this. I probably cannot be of much help to you.
One way to establish which areas have poor quality articles would be to write a script which takes Urban areas of New Zealand and puts a rating for each linked article, writing the result to a page in project space. Probably there is already such a script available; asking at WT:Tools might help find one. Such a script could probably also be run on any of the Category:New Zealand district templates to zoom in on a likely region needing attention.
I think the success of an editathon would depend largely on having a very active and knowledgeable Wikipedian living in the area who could draw in resources, as was the case at Hokitika and Mohua / Golden Bay. We have a page, Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians by location, which could be useful to identify such people, but unfortunately many of the entries are old and the people listed are no longer active. I have occasionally used Category:New Zealand user templates and its subcategories to ping editors who can give me insight into localities.
Kia ora Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand (WANZ) members.
We invite you to consider standing for the WANZ Committee at our AGM 22 April 2024 to help shape and influence events and decisions.
The role of Secretary will be vacant. We are also interested in succession planning for the future. Please email info@wikimedia.nz for the Secretary Job Description, and the document outlining the relationship and tasks between the Secretary and the Executive Advisor position, as the Executive Advisor is now picking up day-to-day administration tasks from the Secretary.
If you would like to come along to a meeting and watch the committee in action before deciding whether to stand please reach out.
If you are interested and want to know more please contact our President Victoria Leachman by calling 021 490 329 or emailing president@wikimedia.nz.
On 11 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Onekaka Power Station, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the rebuilt Onekaka Power Station is controlled remotely using text messages via the cellular phone network? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Onekaka Power Station. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Onekaka Power Station), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
On 21 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cobb Power Station, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Cobb Power Station has the highest-elevation hydroelectric storage lake in New Zealand? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cobb Power Station. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Cobb Power Station), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
On 23 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mussel Inn, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the proprietor of the music venue the Mussel Inn(pictured) in Onekaka built tables strong enough for up to eight people to dance on? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mussel Inn. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Mussel Inn), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Here's a query I made in the Wikidata Query Builder, which generates a list of streams and rivers in Kahurangi National Park (81 in total, of which 69 have English Wikipedia articles). For the places I've processed (Abel Tasman, Aoraki / Mount Cook, Egmont, Kahurangi and every regional park) you should be able to do SPARQL queries looking at how many features of different types there are, and generate lists of the tallest hills/peaks in the protected areas). --Prosperosity (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Importing GIS data into Open Street Map - for Wikipedia articles
@Canley:. Hi, I need some advice please. I am a novice user of Open Street Map, but would like to use this great tool for maps in infoboxes of articles. My current wiki projects including creating/expanding articles on Dark-sky preserves in New Zealand. A recent example is Oxford Forest Conservation Area. This area is a protected area currently shown in LINZ data. See: [16]. My question is whether it is realistically possible to import the complex boundary of the Oxford Forest Conservation Area into Open Street Map. Looking at some initial guidance, it seems quite hard, and would be best done by someone with considerable prior experience. Have you tried anything like this, and if it is practical to do this import, do you know of anyone I could ask to help me out ? Marshelec (talk) 07:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little difficult to import data, but not too bad. What I use (for example, for the Kahurangi National Park expansion that you noticed) is JOSM, an OpenStreetMap editor running in Java, that is more powerful than the built-in default iD editor. With JOSM you can load data such as GeoJSON files into the editor and then upload to OSM (I also usually simplify the paths a bit). If you're uploading LINZ data in bulk, it's suggested that you introduce yourself at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/LINZ (and possibly set up an imports account), so that you don't override or duplicate anything from their coordinated project – however they don't seem to be working on protected areas at the moment, and a few imports of dark-sky preserves shouldn't tread on any toes, but it might be courteous to check with that group if there's any issue. Maybe give it a try yourself in JOSM, if you run into difficulties let me know and I can try, or the OSM LINZ group might also be able to help. --Canley (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kia ora, I'm keen to set up a TaskForce for articles related to Christchurch to keep up the momentum on the work being done by @Alexeyevitch and others. You mentioned you could help with setting one up but did not want to coordinate. I'm happy to coordinate but don't know how to set one up. You might be the ying to my yang on this one.
@Cloventt:
Here is a draft of a note that I plan to place on the Christchurch article talk page, and on the Wikipedia NZ Noticeboard. Before I do that, please review and comment here. My current thinking is that the number of editors interested in Christchurch-related articles (and the number of articles that might be worked on in the foreseeable future) are both quite small, and that it is hard to justify the effort involved in a fully-featured WikiProject at this stage. Establishing the simple approach first does not rule out the fully-featured approach in the future. However, I am open to feedback. Please get back to me about this draft, and I will then finalise and post the notice.
Thanks. M
A collaborative Wikiproject for Christchurch-related articles ?
A group of editors have shown interest in collaboration to improve the Christchurch article, and significant work has already taken place. In addition to the work on the main article, the collaboration will involve review and changes for various Christchurch-related articles, and potentially the creation of some new articles. It has been suggested that it would be useful to establish a Wikiproject to help co-ordinate this work and provide a central place for discussion about inter-relationships between content etc. Future expansion of the project scope could include improvements to media in Wikimedia Commons, and enhancing coverage in Wikidata and Wikisource. There are several possible approaches to a project for further developing the collaborative efforts. These are:
stay with the current approach of discussions on the talk pages of articles (ie, do not establish a project)
establish a simple collaborative project page (or taskforce), broadly similar to WP:WikiProject New Zealand/National parks. This might include a table with a row for each section of the main article, and a separate table listing some related articles that are important to the discussions, with some notes about the issues and proposed steps for those sections or articles. Establishing a simple collaborative project page appears quite easy.
establish a fully-featured WikiProject_Christchurch, possibly following the example of: WP:WikiProject_Auckland, including a banner for the new Wikiproject to be applied to the talk page for all category-linked articles (presumably by a robot or tool), and then providing an automated table of all articles linked to the WikiProject_Christchurch, with their importance and quality rating. Establishing a fully-featured WikiProject appears somewhat complex, but would be in line with other projects for city articles (see listing of benchmark projects on the WikiProject Auckland page)
Please provide feedback on the merits of a WikiProject for Christchurch-related articles, and the preferred approach.
That looks good to me, I'm keen to get more input from interested editors so thanks for handling that.
I suggested a taskforce because as you say I don't think we have enough people for a dedicated WikiProject. I also noticed the Auckland WikiProject is somewhat dormant, possibly because it didn't have enough people. A taskforce under WikiProject New Zealand seems most sensible to me as a lightweight starting point. We can evolve into a dedicated WikiProject later if there is a need. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexeyevitch: I see that you have been waiting since early February for an editor to respond to your GA nomination for Aoraki / Mount Cook National Park. I can understand that this delay might be frustrating. If this is your first GA nomination, perhaps it might help to hear a bit about my experience as a GA reviewer.
I have now completed 10 GA reviews. They require a substantial amount of work by the reviewer, and also significant work by the nominator in responding to feedback. The size of the article, and the number of references, significantly affect the effort required. If you are interested to see the detail of one of the reviews I have undertaken, please look at Talk:Malvern railway station, Melbourne/GA2. I recommend you open up the collapsed sections to see the kind of detailed feedback I provided, and the use of strike-throughs to record completed actions. This will give you some indication of the multiple exchanges with the nominator. The total of the review comments and feedback (in words of readable prose) is much longer than the article itself !!
The article Aoraki / Mount Cook National Park is more than 3 times as large as the Malvern railway station that I reviewed. On the positive side, I think that the Aoraki article is in a much better shape at present than the Malvern railway station article was when I started the review. (I had initially considered failing it because it was so far short of the standard, but then I decided that it was better for the nominator (and for the encyclopedia) if I put in the hard work along with the nominator, to get the article improved, even though it took a lot of my time).
If we assume that most GA reviewers would take a similarly thorough approach, then you can see that a large commitment of time is required for Aoraki Mount Cook National Park. My guess is that by the time the GA review of Aoraki / Mount Cook National Park is completed, it might take at least 20 hours of the reviewers time, perhaps a lot more. This may be one of the reasons for a delay in someone volunteering to undertake the review - it is a major commitment.
I am not permitted to be the GA reviewer for Aoraki / Mount Cook National Park because I have contributed to the article. However, I am keen to see this article get to the GA stage, so it might be worthwhile for me to begin providing detailed feedback, if you are in a position to respond over the next few weeks. A formal GA review will still be needed, but time spent on improvements now will reduce the time required later (and perhaps it might also make it more likely that a reviewer will come forward, if they see that a robust review has already occurred). Please consider and get back to me._Marshelec (talk) 08:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'll still be waiting patiently until someone decides to... of course this will be a huge milestone for the national parks project for WPNZ if it will pass GAN. I'll be active this month, I'll analyze that article this month to check for any improvements. I've also been improving the Foveaux Strait article this evening, a lot of content was lacking beforehand. Thanks for reaching out to me. Alexeyevitch(talk)11:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A+W NZ are bringing back the New Zealand Women in Architecture WikiProject Walking Tour and Wikipedia Edit-a-thon for 2024 with two concurrent in-person events in Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland on Saturday 18th May 2024. We will build from the good work of 2023 and welcome any contributions, in-person or off-site.
On 24 May 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Axel Downard-Wilke, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Axel Downard-Wilke(pictured) led a campaign in 2020 to have macrons used in Māori place names in Wikipedia articles? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Axel Downard-Wilke. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Axel Downard-Wilke), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bushy Park (New Zealand), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Toutouwai.
Done
rove.wiki if you can make it (or can't but have ideas about the project) • Thank you all for your contributions, however small, and chat soon. — Giantflightlessbirds
.jpg)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. – Teratix ₵ 08:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
