Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 23

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive for January to June 2017

Bain family murders

I have recently become re-involved in this article and made some bold edits in an attempt to make it more encyclopedic. To be honest, I am failing in trusting most of the main editors there due to the level of dedicated account involvement and strong opinions being expressed on this case. More eyes from experienced editors would be useful. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 04:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I recently read the article for the first time, without knowing the edit history. It immediately struck me as subtly unbalanced and pro-David. If good faith edits had occurred to maintain neutrality then they seem not to have succeeded. I reflected on risk of having a limited number of (potentially not legally trained) wiki editors dealing with any legal article, especially one such as this.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

James and Mary Wallis page

I've made some minor corrections to the page on James and Mary Wallis (eg fixed 1938 to 1838). Also the last son in the children list, Jabez Bunting Wallis, was a grandson, not a son, so was removed. At the bottom of the page is an orphaned line, Captain James Wallis of the 46th regiment 1785-1858 with no explanation or reference, does anyone know what this is about? I maintain a family tree & don't believe this Captain James has anything to do with the Rev James, I recommend this line be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlyleN (talk • contribs) 06:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikiwand is not Wikipedia - corrected link to Wikipedia page NealeFamily (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

This article contains a number of issues, from a Wikipedia perspective, not the least of which is the abysmal referencing, none of which can be verified by the reader. Also note that Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#COI editing discourages editors quoting their own work as a reference. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Royal New Zealand Coastguard

Could we get the quality and importance assessed on this page please? I have overhauled the whole page. by cody 06:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

List of wind farms

Hi all - We currently have two separate and diverging lists of wind farms in New Zealand, as part of the pages Wind power in New Zealand and List of power stations in New Zealand I've started a discussion at Talk:Wind power in New Zealand about verifying, amalgamating, and moving them to a stand-alone List of wind farms in New Zealand (currently a redirect) - please comment at the mentioned talk page! Grutness...wha? 22:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Wellington

I have started a proposal for a new WikiProject related to New Zealand: WikiProject Wellington. Here is the proposal. J 947 20:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Peter Leitch (Mad Butcher) BLP undue weight discussion

There has been, unsurprisingly, a lot of editing/expansion of the article Peter Leitch (businessman) lately. There is concern that some edits have introduced a significant undue weight problem in the article -- see discussion at Talk:Peter Leitch (businessman)#Racism incident. I have trimmed the area of concern (to hopefully avoid any BLP violations), but a few eyes on the article, and the input of others, would be greatly appreciated. -- Shudde ^talk 17:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject New Zealand/sports?

Should we be considering making a sports taskforce for WPNZ? I'd be happy to help out. Pinging Schwede66, Mattlore, and Lugnuts. J 947 21:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't know. Is it needed? If there's a few editors who find it helpful to collaborate via a taskforce, it could be handy. We have taskforces that are rather inactive (just saying). Schwede 66 04:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I dip in and out of NZ biographies depending on what I'm focusing on (cricket, Olympics, etc). If it would help and be of use, then it sounds OK. However, as Schwede66 states, there are lots of inactive taskforces, so we don't need to make one just for the sake of it. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Sports articles that need checking

Hi there, thought I'd let you know that 61 New Zealand sports bios have been moved to draft space and need checking. This page gives the background. Schwede 66 04:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Sum of All Paintings - NZ list

Hi all,
For the "Sum of all Paintings" project on Wikidata we're seeking to find all available digitised catalogues (metadata, not necessarily images) of paintings in any kind of GLAM. We've found a bunch of GLAM websites in New Zealand already but perhaps you know of others we've missed? Please add as many as you can think of to this page, ideally if you can also indicate the number of paintings in the collection, and the URL that can be used to scrape that metadata: d:Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Location/New Zealand. (if you know of others in the region that would be awesome too) Witty lama 10:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Your definition of notable appears to be flawed from a wikipedia point of view. Other notable collection galleries include Adam Art Gallery, Dowse Art Museum, Dunedin Public Art Gallery, Govett-Brewster Art Gallery, New Zealand Portrait Gallery, New Zealand Academy of Fine Arts and Te Manawa. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're saying the notability is incorrect... firstly we're talking about adding Wikidata items (not Wikipedia pages), and secondly we're talking about adding lots of individual works to wikidata (not the museums that house them which already ought to have wikidata items). Your suggestion of Dunedin Public Art Gallery, for example, is excellent and I've just included that at the bottom of that page - they have 787 works catalogued as "oil". Unfortunately, and by comparison, others that you mentioned (e.g. Dowse, Govett-Brewster, Academy of Fine Arts) don't have online catalogues which can be used to find any paintings in their collection. The NZ Portrait Gallery DOES have an online collection, but I'm finding it hard to work out how to see a full listing of paintings - all I seem to be able to do is filter by "recent", "artist" or "subject". Te Manawa also does have a "collection" page but there's nothing actually on it. Finally, the Adam Art Gallery does have a full collection listing - but it's a 51page PDF and doesn't specify the medium of each work so it's unknowable if they're paintings, sculptures etc. If you can suggest any other online collections of paintings in NZ, or indeed elsewhere (see this list of all the country-specific pages) please add them :-) Witty lama 10:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

See if this fits with what you are looking for - University of Auckland Art Collection. Nurg (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

G'day Sheep shaggers

Some Welsh people at the Sheep shagger article are convinced that sheep shagger is a "racist" term because of some court case in Britain where someone was charged under the Calling a Welshman a Sheep Shagger Act. I've tried to tell them they're being ridiculous, gone to the talk page and all, but they insist on including the word "racist" in the lead sentence. Can I have some help please? MaxBrowne (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The Cyclopedia of New Zealand

Should places in The Cyclopedia of New Zealand be considered notable? If we reach consensus to I'll start with Warepa and Pomahaka, due to their relevance to the April 1865 Bruce by-election, an article I've been working on. J 947 01:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Gadfium, if I remember rightly, once tied notability of geographic units to whether they are a census meshblock. To me, that makes sense for inherent notability. Beyond that, I'd say that WP:GNG ought to be met. I would not think that inclusion in The Cyclopedia of New Zealand gives inherent notability. Schwede 66 02:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't recall doing that. I have suggested any place (in New Zealand) with a primary school is notable, because there will be a community around the school. I think there will usually be a case that any area unit in the current census will be notable. Area units have names. Meshblocks are much smaller areas than area units, and just have numbers.

The problem with the Cyclopedia is that it accepted paid-for biographies, and thus isn't suitable as a claim of notability for people. I don't know if it accepted vanity articles on locations. No article on a location would be acceptable using only the Cyclopedia as a source because the information would be too dated.-gadfium 03:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Warepa has a school. J 947 03:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Meshblocks are tiny! J 947 03:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Census meshblocks themselves don't have names - the have numbers (seven-digit if I remember correctly). I suspect Stats NZ sometimes doesn't explain well enough how they present rural population data - I'm fairly sure Leithfield doesn't belong in this list, for example.

Warepa is definitely a notable place - it's one of the original settlements in the lower Clutha area - there's probably a local history available in libraries. Pomahaka is now best known as a river - there's still a locality called Pomahaka, just north of Conical Hill, but it may well not be the same place as the one that was called Pomahaka in 1865. Daveosaurus (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Daveosaurus: I know—they are seven-digit—Schwede66 was probably referring to area units. I'll start a stub and some editors around the area—maybe Grutness or you—could have a look in the local library for more sources. J 947 03:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd say that Cyclopedia of New Zealand entries are probably not enough in themselves. If they're also in Wise's New Zealand guide, then they'd be more acceptable, but even then a lot of them would be borderline. Having said that, Warepa would definitely be acceptable. Not so sure about Pomahaka, but it's possible (FWIW, if my dad were still alive, he'd have a very good idea about which were notable and which weren't - he was born in Romahapa, only a couple of km from Warepa!) Grutness...wha? 04:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I meant area units, of course. Gadfium, it was in respect to the Northcote Point article, but I can't see the discussion anywhere. Schwede 66 04:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Romahapa would be notable too - actually just went and checked and it's already got an article. I probably should have tried to get an interesting photo while I was driving through the town yesterday. Didn't think of it though... Got one of Port Molyneux, though, but it turns out it doesn't have an article at all so nowhere to put the photo.

Looking at the Clutha towns list, the following red-linked ones are probably notable enough for an article: Port Molyneux, Chaslands, Waipahi, Clydevale, Tuapeka Mouth, Waipori and Waikoikoi. A few other possibles would include Merino Downs, Ratanui and Purakaunui (this last one mainly so that people can point out that Purakaunui near Waitati and Purakaunui near Ratanui are two different places). If I knew more about the Clutha area (and had more spare time) I'd have a go at writing a few of these myself. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this thread. A couple of points (a) in my day job I maintain the most widely used version of the cyclopedias, so can help with things like machine readable versions (b) the whole thing was basically a vanity press exercise, none of content should be trusted as there are some serious fabrications and exaggerations and (c) most places in the cyclopedias are probably notable, but commonly not be the same name. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've done a little bit of the dreaded "Original Research" into this and found out:

* The Pomahaka in question is the station of Captain Francis Wallace Mackenzie.

* In Mackenzie's article it states "...he set up his farm 'Glenkenich', and the locality, near Tapanui, is now known as Pomahaka."

* The source (the infamous Cyclopedia) actually says "owner of Glenkenick, Pomahaka" and that he "took up land at the Pomahaka river".

* Looking at the 1:50 000 topo layer, I see that Pomahaka is a locality on the east bank of the Pomahaka River; a locality called Glenkenich (which would have been pronounced "Glenkenick") is about 4 km upstream, also on the east bank of the Pomahaka River; and that a homestead named "McKenzie Downs" is on the west bank of the Pomahaka River about 1 km west of Pomahaka locality. Whether McKenzie Downs is anything to do with Captain Mackenzie is more than I would know, but the name "Glenkenich" definitely dates back to the earliest days: the land registration district in the area is the Glenkenich SD.

I'd suggest that, if you want a blue link to link the polling place to, then either use Pomahaka River or else create an article for Glenkenich. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

My trusty old 1969 Wise's New Zealand Guide lists Pomahaka (p.267) as a mining and former sawmilling settlement 5 1/2 miles (9km) south of Tapanui and 21 miles (33km) east of Gore via Waikoikoi, on the banks of the river of the same name. Well-known for trout fishing, altitude 372 feet (112m). Glenkenich, however, is listed (p. 73) as being 15 miles (24km) north of Waipahi, 2 miles (3km) west of Tapanui, and 4 miles (6km) from Kelso. This roughly agrees with the topo map, but not with Mackenzie. The Cyclopedia could simply be using the term Pomahaka to refer to the area around the river. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

There's a portion of the West Otago runs map reproduced in Ian Simpson's "A Rich Harvest" and it shows "Station Capⁿ McKenzie" within cooee of "McKenzie Downs" - across the river from the locality Pomahaka. Elsewhere in the book, a later Crown Grant index record map shows Mackenzie owning a large amount of land in the area, including a runholder's pre-emptive right at McKenzie Downs. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Waitangi Day

Kia Ora you lot. One of your brethren, (Akld guy), was disgruntled about the lack of Waitangi Day on the main page yesterday. A couple of us have tried to explain why, i.e. mainly that the article is pretty much bereft of references, so it isn't good enough for main page inclusion. Akld guy has said he's going to work on the article, I was hoping you'd all join in and make this topic one of Wikipedia's finest. Frankly I'm a little shocked that it's not a featured article by now! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

My objection was to the timing, which disqualified the article one day before it was due to appear. Not adequate notice, and a serious lack of judgement by the editor who tagged it for disqualification, considering that Waitangi Day has been featured 10 times on the Main Page in the past and is a day of national significance to all New Zealanders. Akld guy (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

No lack of judgement, in fact the opposite, disallowing mediocrity (at best) and rank piss-poor referencing. It matters not one iota that it was featured in the past, nor that it's "a day of national significance to all New Zealanders". The article is junk, and the sooner you all fix it up, the better. Now crack on! P.S. Continuing to rail against the exclusion is doing you less than no favours. As an experienced editor, you ought to be aware of WP:V and WP:RS, so it's utterly indefensible to argue for the main page inclusion of an article in such a dismal state. That it was removed one day beforehand is simply symptomatic of the fact that no-one is helping Howcheng out. If you'd like to step up and stop whinging like a Pom, that'd be great too. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I didn't come here to "rail against the exclusion". I was mentioned here in a not very good light ("disgruntled") and was forced to defend my complaint here. You brought it here, not me. Now STFU and let me continue on with improving the article as I did this morning. I have been out all afternoon and expect to continue in the morning, about 12 hours from now. Akld guy (talk) 06:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

And you have forced Howcheng and I to defend our positions in preventing mediocre (and in this case, very poor) articles from getting onto the main page. There was not one iota of a lack of judgement, despite your continued baseless and bad faith arguments. Time to quit the whinging and do something practical, there's a shedload of work to do. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Of all the days you could have flagged the article for clean-up, you waited until the day before the holiday itself? Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, it's unhelpful. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Photo challenge February 2017 is Multilingualism

FYI, take a look in commons:Commons:Photo challenge/2017 - February - Multilingualism if you have any file you'd like to upload, maybe in some of your archive at home. So far nothing from New Zealand (therefore nothing written in Māori language).--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Anglican Māori dioceses

Hi friends. I'm an experienced editor on Anglican church articles, but I need some help from people with NZ/Māori knowledge. The article Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia section Aotearoa lists the five Māori hui amorangi (dioceses of that church). 'Til just now, four of those five articles were named with the diocese's name without "Te Hui Amorangi..." (e.g. Manawa O Te Wheke). That seemed strange to me, because a "New Zealand" (English-speaking) diocese would be named Diocese of Wellington, so I moved two, to Te Hui Amorangi O Te Upoko O Te Ika and Te Hui Amorangi O Te Waipounamu, then realised the fifth is at Te Hui Amorangi ki Te Tairawhiti. So I'm in a muddle because I don't speak Māori so I don't know if O Te or ki Te is more appropriate. I'm also wondering whether these Māori culture, Māori language, institutions ought to be named on the English-language wikipedia by English-language translations of their names? DBD 17:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Good questions. WP:NCNZ is the place where we should record any consensus that we come to. I suggest that we use the Māori language names to record the institutions, as that has become increasingly common. Schwede 66 17:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks loads for such a quick response. I didn't even think to look for WP:NCNZ but of course it makes massive sense that that would exist already! How might we square using the Māori-language names for the dioceses with WP:EN? DBD 18:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The Church seems to use "Te Pīhopatanga o Aotearoa o", for example "Te Pīhopatanga o Aotearoa o Te Tairāwhiti". I would be interested in what other reliable sources call them. Mattlore (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Art+Feminism edit-a-thon covering women artists in Auckland

I noticed a posting by @Pharos: at @DerbyCountyinNZ:'s talk page asking for help at an edit-a-thon in Mairangi Bay (North Shore Auckland) on 18-19 March. I am willing to help. What do I need to know and how should I prepare for this. Are there other experienced Wikipedians who would like to come along?-gadfium 22:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland/ArtAndFeminism 2017 is the specific page.-gadfium 22:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Kurī

Is there anybody interested in expanding the article Kurī? I have compiled a list of sources on the subject on the further reading section that can be used to expand the article but don't think I am up to working on it myself. I feel like it can get a DYK nomination with a fivefold expansion which given the current size won't be much. Thanks. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

U_Choose_40

I strongly suspect that this show is not still airing on C4. Can anyone update it? (When?) did it cease? I can't find anything particularly useful on it. Does it even really meet notability requirements or would it be better served with a minor merge to C4? Thanks, ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Hydronium Hydroxide: Yup, to be honest I think the info should be merged into the C4 article. C4 stopped running about 2014 and the Four channel it's self 2016. Sirpottingmix (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Done by Stuartyeates the same day. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 07:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Upcoming "420 collaboration"

[[

File:Cannabis leaf 2.svg|right|100px]]

You are invited to participate in the upcoming

"420 collaboration",

which is being held from Saturday, April 15 to Sunday, April 30, and especially on April 20, 2017!

The purpose of the collaboration, which is being organized by WikiProject Cannabis, is to create and improve cannabis-related content at Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects in a variety of fields, including: culture, health, hemp, history, medicine, politics, and religion.

WikiProject New Zealand participants may be particularly interested in the following: Cannabis in New Zealand.

For more information about this campaign, and to learn how you can help improve Wikipedia, please visit the "420 collaboration" page.

---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Seeking feedback at FAC

I have nominated Joe Warbrick as a FAC -- see here. We don't see many NZ editors around at FAC very often and NZ focused articles rarely get nominated. Please don't be reluctant to contribute there, it can intimidate some people but it's basically just a peer review. It'd be good to see more NZ related articles nominated and if there are any that people feel may be appropriate post about them below. FAC is actually in a bit of trouble: it's not attracting enough reviewers or nominators, and it looks like the number of new Featured Articles isn't going to keep up with the 365 a year rate we need for Today's Featured Article. Hence a discussion recently about whether we need to start re-running previously featured articles on the main page (see Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article)! So this is really a more general appeal; even if you don't want to comment on my nominee specifically, have a look through FAC and see if there is anything you feel comfortable commenting on and please do so (even if it's just a "comment" with feedback rather than an "oppose" or "support"). Cheers. -- Shudde ^talk 20:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Sports bio requires copyedit

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I've submitted an article about mountain bike legend Kathy Lynch to GA review and the reviewer is suggesting that it needs a good copyedit; he finds the "prose tough going". Well, I'm not a native English speaker, so maybe somebody else might want to lend a hand? That would be much appreciated. Schwede 66 03:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I attempted to change the title of the "Notes" section to "References", but you reverted me, citing WP:CITESHORT. Even after reading that, I'm dumbfounded. There are some full citations in the Lynch article, and the CITESHORT page says that they should be in their own References section while the short cites should be in a Notes section. It looks like you're asking for GA rating for an article that has no References. Akld guy (talk) 03:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The book in 'References' is the reference; the preceding section has the short citations, and the long citations not from that book. That's the usual way of dealing with it, as far as I know. A 'see also' section is something completely different; see MOS:ALSO. Appreciate your help, but it needs to align with the manual of style. Schwede 66 03:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why you mentioned "See also", because I never raised that issue here (I admit I was wrong on that). I can only assume you meant it as a further dismissal of me because I raised an issue. For an example of how "Notes" and "References" should be used together, see the bottom of Jack the Ripper. I find it disturbing that GA rating is asked for when there is no reference section, not to mention at least one other major problem with the article. Akld guy (talk) 03:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

High Commissioner from New Zealand to the United Kingdom

Sir Jerry Mateparae is now the High Commissioner

References & pages that need updating

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_high_commissioners_of_New_Zealand_to_the_United_Kingdom

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Jerry_Mateparae

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Lockwood_Smith

https://www.facebook.com/nzhcuk/posts/761919067290753:0

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/87653202/sir-jerry-mateparae-to-become-next-high-commissioner-to-the-uk
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.154.159.93 (talk) 01:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Scoop.co.nz

Hi Wikipedians in New Zealand! Is Scoop (website) a good source to use in a GA or FA article? I wanna use a press release from this site to reference for the information about Adele concerts' contribution to Auckland's economy Phamthuathienvan (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Most New Zealanders would use it and regard it as a reliable source.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Scoop mainly just republishes press releases. In that example, Regional Facilities Auckland is the author, not scoop. Mattlore (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mattlore: I know. But the press release that published on Regional Facilities Auckland's website does not give the information about the STADIUM CONCERT STATISTICS like Scoop. That why I am considering to use Scoop instead of RFA because I need the number to compare each concert that contribute to Auckland's economy.—Phamthuathienvan (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

These are press releases (=primary sources) and you can't use these numbers like you want to, you need to get them from a secondary source. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Stuart is correct. Scoop is a primary source. NealeFamily (talk) 04:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Stuartyeates, NealeFamily Like I said, I need these numbers to compare each concert that contributed to Auckland's economy in early 2017. I actually don't want to use Scoop as a reference and try to avoid using it but I don't know why the original publisher, which is Regional Facilities Auckland (RFA), did not provide STADIUM CONCERT STATISTICS. I tried to google these numbers on Internet but no reliable source mentions them (except Scoop) :(( —Phamthuathienvan (talk) 08:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

There will always be true things we can't say while remaining an encyclopedia. This may be one of them. Stuartyeates (talk) 11:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what you mean @Stuartyeates. So press release from Scoop or even RFA can not be used? Phamthuathienvan (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Industry and commerce

Just to note that with all our articles about our cities and towns and local councils and their mayors and culture etc we never seem to report on how the residents win their bread - even if it is just servicing the farming community. Just a Thought. Eddaido (talk) 04:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject and related task forces have signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post on Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Popular pages.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding reach of WikiProject Philosophy, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at meta:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, The Community Tech Team, through Johan (WMF) (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

NZ Herald

The NZ Herald changed to a new format a few days ago. It seems that references older than about a year no longer exist. Has anyone heard whether the Herald is working to fix this? Akld guy (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

What to do when the source is behind a paywall

Hi all,

First post here on Wikipedia, apologies if this isn't in the right place!

I was just wondering what the considerations were around sourcing information from publicly-available but paywall-protected sources.

I have access to a business education platform called Unfiltered (unfiltered.co.nz) which has primary information from numerous influential businesspeople such as Sir Douglas Myers, Sir Owen Glenn, Dame Trelise Cooper, Karen Walker and so on, in the form of video interviews with the person in question. However the bulk of the content is protected by a paywall and thus can only be verified via another party with a subscription to the site.

Can Unfiltered be cited as a source for Wikipedia articles?

Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oginoy (talk • contribs) 18:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The source being behind a WP:PAYWALL is not a problem; what matters is that it meets verifiability. Schwede 66 18:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedian in Residence

Hello, I'm the wikipedian in residence at the Auckland War Memorial Museum. I'm writing here to let you know that this week I will be sitting down with a range of curators and going through some New Zealand related start-class and stub-class articles and seeing what references and photos we are able to contribute from the Auckland collection. We will leave our contributions on the talk page of the article and I'll post here what articles we have looked at (If this is the right place for that?). If anyone would like to follow through and help adding the resources to the article that would be amazing! If you are interested in the other projects I'm doing or want to get involved you can find out more about the project at Wikipedia:GLAM/Auckland Museum Susan Tol (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Great, Susan Tol! I'm happy to help with adding resources to articles. When we are talking resources, I guess we are (mostly) talking about image files. Please upload them straight to Commons rather than Wikipedia (sorry if I'm telling you how to suck eggs). If Commons is uncharted territory for you, I'm happy to point you in the right direction. Schwede 66 01:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I will upload the images to Commons, I should have clarified that. In regards to resources my aim is to find photos, newspaper clippings and other physical records that can't already be found online. I will scan and upload them where I can and write out the information that I can't. I would like to put information that is hard to track down out into public access and ideally that would be more than just photos but we will see what I'm able to achieve. Susan Tol (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, today I'm working through a list of New Zealand fashion designers and creating Stubs for them using a mix of the Auckland collection and what I have online. I've just created a stub for Annie Bonza if anyone would like to give me feedback on it would be much appreciated. We'll be trying to get some additional photos approved to upload soon.Susan Tol (talk) 01:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I've made a few edits at Annie Bonza. Look at the source of my changes (ie, go to the History view and press "prev" for each edit) to see the detail of what I've changed, and see my edit summary for my explanation.-gadfium 05:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi I've gone through and made a bunch of new articles, I didn't want to cause too much spam hence why I'm putting them all together. They are Josephine and Sybil Mulvany ,Susan Holmes (fabric artist) , Marilyn Sainty and Emma Knuckey. Any feedback is great and if anyone has suggestions for someone I'm missing out or want me to have a wee search through aucklands collection on someone I'm able to. Other than that I'll start really getting into uploading images from the Aucklands archaeology section onto Commons Susan Tol (talk) 05:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

125th anniversary of women's suffrage in NZ

I had the pleasure of meeting Susan Tol (see the above section) this morning. One of the items we discussed was the upcoming 125th anniversary of women's suffrage in New Zealand, in 2018. Would there be enthusiasm for a colloboration of New Zealand editors, assisted I hope by Women in Red, to get a suitable article up to featured status in time to appear on the front page on a suitable date? The articles I have in mind as candidates are Women's suffrage in New Zealand and Kate Sheppard. The relevant dates are 19 September 1893 (when the bill giving women suffrage was given royal assent) or 28 November 1893 (when women voted for the first time).-gadfium 02:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I have thought about working on the Kate Sheppard article in the past, because I think it's a worthy subject, but my problem is I have a lack of sources. However I am happy to help with the other things (copyediting, the minutae of the WP:MOS etc) because I have a little bit of experience getting biographies to FA standard. I can't guarantee that I can spend a lot of time on it (I have not been able to edit much lately), but I think if the aim is 2018, that this is plenty of time to get an article up to FA standard. Feel free to message me if anything comes of your suggestion and I will help where I can. -- Shudde ^talk 17:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm a university student so have quite a bit of access to libraries and archives, If anyone else was interested? This would probably happen after my residency though. Susan Tol (talk) 01:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

National Library of New Zealand

Can anyone shed any light on what looks like a discrepancy of the NL-NZ terms of use and individual item description pages within the manuscripts and photos section. The main terms of use state

You are welcome to share (copy, distribute, and transmit) and adapt (including cropping, recolouring and combining) these freely downloaded items for commercial and non-commercial purposes, as long as you:
Note and briefly describe any derivation or alteration of the original, and Attribute the creator (if known), and Attribute the Alexander Turnbull Library as the source.
Please link to the item's page, or cite its reference number, as this will help future researchers.
Contribution of content
Contributed content must not include material that infringes intellectual property or privacy rights, breaches suppression orders or any other laws, or is purposefully inflammatory.
Contributed content may be licensed to any third parties under the most open licence available for New Zealand government use, which is currently the Creative Commons Attribution (BY) licence
— [1]

which is a cc-by-sa-3.0 release. But on item description pages in the MP section it says

Usage: You can search, browse, print and download items from this website for research and personal study. You are welcome to reproduce the above image(s) on your blog or another website, but please maintain the integrity of the image (i.e. don't crop, recolour or overprint it), reproduce the image's caption information and link back to here (link removed). If you would like to use the above image(s) in a different way (e.g. in a print publication), or use the transcription or translation, permission must be obtained.
— http://mp.natlib.govt.nz/detail/?id=33780&l=en

Is this simply explained as the Terms of use were updated at some point but all the individual description pages - which to me look to be a lot older style - haven't been amended or there is a disconnect I'm not seeing. Nthep (talk) 10:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Eden Garden

The article Eden Garden has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability has not been established since it was questioned in September 2008. All footnote sources appear to be dead.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 10:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)