Talk:Christchurch

Suburb in wrong city

In the Outer Suburbs is listed Highfield but when I click on the article I end up in a suburb of Timaru. Google maps also put Highfield in Timaru. DOPmanNZ (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

That refers to a previously proposed subdivision that hasn’t happened yet. As it’s a name given to it by developers rather than the area being known as such, I suggest we should delete the entry for now. Schwede66 17:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of Kaiapoi in lead

I think the inclusion of Kaiapoi's history in the lead is undue, it's not located within Christchurch and has no real impact on the city itself. Inclusion in the general history should also not be included unless a link between the early Maori Kaiapoi settlement and the early European Christchurch settlement can be established, it's certainly possible and likely that trade occurred between the two. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I disagree... Kaiapoi and the others mentioned in the lede are major "satellite towns" of Christchurch. There was a pā there and they had a track that leads down to another settlement in modern-day Christchruch. (That gives context on why Māori later settled in Christchurch) Alexeyevitch^(talk) 03:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I meant the history of Kaiapoi.

>That gives context on why Māori later settled in Christchurch

And is there evidence of this in a reliable source? That'd qualify for inclusion into the history section but I fail to see why the lede for the article on Christchurch should mention the history of another town. Auckland's lead doesn't mention the pas at One Tree Hill or Mangere Mountain nor the early conflict that lead to Ngati Whatua Orakei taking control of the Auckland area, even their donation of land to found the city isn't mentioned. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Auckland's lede is irrelevant to Christchurch's... Kaiapoi's Māori history is relevant to Christchurch history - I've said my reasoning before. Keep it in the lede. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 04:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

There needs to be evidence of Maori migration from Kaiapoi moving into Christchurch into the article, the relevance is not established in the article currently. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Here is one reference that is already in the article: [1]. Surely there's more references about the Māori walking track... I prefer to focus on other articles at presence, but if someone would like to add content about that then go for it. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 04:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Traumnovelle's first post is politely correct. That paragraph in the lead should not be there so I removed it. The first inhabitants of Christchurch, bar a few in the advanced guard came on the first four ships. Before then Christchurch did not exist so a paragraph in the lead about what was there on the land beforehand is, how can I say it, not necessary. What was happeningat Kaiapoi is even less relevant. That detail can be added to a small section in the article about the period before 1850 when Europeans arrived to establish the city. Trade with Maori at the Kaiapoi pa can also fit, with correct weight, ie, a phrase not even a sentence, in a subsection in the article below. If you want all this off-topic stuff in the article, before it even gets to the point of going into the lead, it should be raised here first. Alexeyevitch, there is so much that can be researched and added about Christchurch and its people so why don't you do some research and try and improve this article instead of focusing on one topic of only moderate relevance to Christchurch. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Was it really necessary to delete ALL of the Māori content in the lede? it should be kept... if no reply, then I'll restore most of it. (pre-colonization Māori inhabitants of the Chch region is totally relevant.) Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't say that they came to Christchurch via that route, regardless it's been removed. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore - it's still relevant to Ngāi Tahu and this article alike... I have no idea why Roger removed other content about the local iwi and hapū in chch pre-European colonization (He removed this content with no explanation) Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

This isn't the Ngai Tahu article. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I never said it was. Futhermore - for example: Auckland, Dunedin, and Hamilton have some form of Māori content in their lede... Roger, removed all Māori content in the lede for no reason. (except the Kaiapoi stuff, on which he did give his reasonings on why he removed that) Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

In your own words "Auckland's lede is irrelevant to Christchurch's".

But in all seriousness, I only thought Kaiapoi needn't be mentioned. Early Maori settlement of what became Christchurch should be included in the lead like how Rome mentions (much more briefly, but hey it's Rome) the pre-Roman settlements. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I certainly did. Secondly, I restored content deleted without explaination (not content entirely related to Kaiapoi). Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Cities everywhere have a brief mentionin in WP articles about the land and what happened on it before the city was established. It's a sort of background warmer before the real info starts and is sometimes interesting (eg Romulus and Remus). That brevity is all because what happened before the city existed is not about the city. If there is a connection, that will be developed in the main part of the article in how it affects the city. For chc I suggest a much better pre-city bit of information to mention than a Maori pa in Kaiapoi and the names of various chiefs is the fact that the land was a swamp. That has a clear link to the city that was built on it. Not just the immediate consequences of the earthquakes post 2011 but the way the city was constructed before then. And the history of why the site was chosen and the necessary drainage around 1850. If there is any mention of pre-1850 in the lead I think it should be that, ie the site was marshland that had to be drained. But before that, there should be a fuller explanation in the article below. About removing the whole paragraph - I suggest the bits that should be kept with their sources can be collected up and put somewhere in the main article, but not in the lead. Getting that detail back is easy. I'm sorry to be blunt and dismissive of what you added but it keeps happening. Is there a group agreement that you should be the one to go around adding Maori history and Maori words to as many articles as possible? Like Turnagra has also been doing? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

There will need to be a consensus for that... IMO Māori content should be kept in the lede. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Economy section needs significant rework

Reference to the Infometrics Regional Economic Profile 2023 for Christchurch City [2] indicates that the Economy section needs a complete review, with significant new content added and out-of-date content removed. The text currently claims that Farming is the economic core of Christchurch, but this is not supported by the Infometrics report. Some of this content may more be relevant to the article Canterbury Region. Marshelec (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

It'd probably be best to change 'always' to 'historically', although I presume to change that a new source would be needed that states that otherwise it's synthesis from the outdated OED report and the modern infometrics data. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Spelling words

I made a change today and used the word Maori twice. user:Alexeyevitch later added macrons and in his edit summary accused me of deliberately not adding them, which follows an earlier talk page comment saying it was disruptive by me not to use macrons. I think you should change what you say, Alexeyevitch (and preferably your thinking too). The spelling of that word is m.a.o.r.i. with or without diacritics or capitals, which adapt the letter they don't create a new letter (in English at least). A large percentage of sources, probably the majority, don't add a macron. The word in many dictionaries does not have a macron. If you want to add a macron that is up to you, I've said more than enough about macrons already. You cannot accuse editors of being disruptive because they write something you don't like, especially when it is clearly correct. If you and a bunch of others have decided that words must have macrons that is a flawed consensus decision. It isn't solving a problem of any sort, it doesn't clarify anything, it just reflects the personal preference of you and some others. That is unlike consensus of using UK/US spelling, or calling the city Derry and the county Londonderry, which are practical compromise solutions to ongoing editorial disputes. This is the English wikipedia open to everyone. You don't own all the articles with a loose connection to New Zealand. I've made this comment above the section below so as not to distract from it - the one about tidying up this Christchurch article. What I removed was most of the stuff in that pre-1850 period which, like in the lead, is off-topic and/or not balanced and not properly sourced. Even the first part was not what the CCC library source said anyway. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

What does this have to do with Christchurch? —Panamitsu (talk) 07:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Nothing, it's got to do with accusations-made on this article-of supposedly disruptive edits being made to this article. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Kia ora, the word "Māori" is correctly spelled in English with a macron.[3] The word "Māori" is a loanword from the Māori language. Historic sources often do not include the macron purely for the practical reason that typesetting a macron (even on a computer) used to be difficult. Where they are missing, they should be added.

-- David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

David Palmer, you are wrong. You do not understand what a loanword is otherwise you would not make such a statement. Before you giving an opinion on the spelling of that word in English, you first have to understand how languages work and evolve. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes Roger 8 Roger, the thing you complain about has happened to English several times already and will continue to happen through the history of the language. You don't speak Anglish. During the Norman Conquest, which lasted several hundred years, the UK government spoke French instead of English, which is where a large portion of English words have come from, such as "government", "parliament", "council", "restaurant", etc. Language does in fact evolve this way, and as mentioned in the 2020 RfC, macrons are used more often than they are omitted (10/11 magazines). —Panamitsu (talk) 03:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Honestly I think it is completely laughable to claim the word “Māori” is not borrowed from the Māori language. The dictionary entry I referenced literally describes the etymology as “A borrowing from Māori.” To further quote that source:

> The form Māori reflects the standard spelling of the word in Māori, where the macron indicates a long vowel (compare also the form Maaori). It is the preferred form in present-day New Zealand English, and becoming the predominant form in other varieties of English when referring to the people or the language.

I don’t know how much more obvious this can get. The word is borrowed and is therefore a loanword. -- David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 04:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@David Palmer, When have I ever said Maori isn't a loan word? Once again, please, check your facts and we can then have a discussion. In the meantime feel free to carry on laughing.

@Panamitsu, This issue is not about the evolution of English. Loanwords assimilate/change to fit into English: English doesn't change to fit around a loanword that keeps to its original form, otherwise English would be full of different letters and scripts. The word Maori was assimilated into English 200 years ago and very easily because there was nothing to change, no script. There is no need to assimilate/change that word any more, it fits perfectly well into English. What is happening now in NZ is that the te reo foreign word (with a macron) is being used instead of the English loanword, (without a macron). English is now often using the foreign word (Māori) instead of its own loanword (Maori). That is perfectly possible to do. Problems arise when we try to treat that foreign word as a loanword, such as saying the word is being spelled wrong without a macron - it depends what form you are talking about. If you are writing the loanword then no, without a macron is correct; if talking about the foreign/te reo word then yes, a macron is required. Another problem is David Palmer's comment above, in which he assumes Maori and Māori are the same form, ie both a loanword, and then is unable to understand why Māori is actually a foreign word. If you want to bring in language evolution, it could be said that what is happening is that English is evolving to start using the original foreign word when an assimilated loanword exists. If I choose not to write Māori but to write Maori instead I am doing nothing wrong, I am simply using the English loanword instead of the foreign word. There is absolutely no reason to distinguish between the two forms: they both look and mean exactly the same, except for the macron, and there is no confusion in reading the word, with or without a macron. (To qualify that comment - there is no reason to use a macron unless you have an ulterior motive, such as the planned promotion of te reo.) In NZ there are very many examples where these Maori-origin words are mentioned and the form, loanword or foreign-word, is not distinguished and is therefore used interchangeably at randomly. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I have checked my facts with a subject-matter expert on linguistics and am still not sure what you think I got wrong. If we’re talking past each other somehow then we can drop the loanword issue, it isn’t hugely relevant.

I also checked with another subject-matter expert on formal and technical writing (and English in general) who was of the opinion that not including the macron in the word Māori today would be considered unacceptable in a professional setting, and would be corrected by any professional copyeditor using modern New Zealand English. This matches my own feeling on the subject; my personal perspective is that when I see the word (or any other Māori word) written without a macron I assume the author is either lazy or ignorant of modern New Zealand English, neither of which I wish to be true of kiwis editing Wikipedia.

Back to the issue at hand, you have elsewhere said you deliberately do not use macrons and leave it to the macron police to come by and add them. Fair enough, it is technically (barely) correct English. I also think it was perfectly fair and valid for AlexeyVeitch to note that in their edit fixing your mistakes. If you use other humans as your own personal autocorrect, do not be surprised when the autocorrect sometimes grumbles back at you. -- David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Cloventt and what Panamitsu said earlier. Macrons are common in New Zealand English, and consensus was made a few years earlier was to use them in NZ articles and the word "Māori". I think there's nothing wrong with adding a note that Roger is not adding it.

I am assuming good faith but... it would not be OKAY if I started using the American spelling "aluminum", "colonization" or "kilometer" in New Zealand articles because I simply don't like the British spelling. That is similar to what Roger has been doing with macrons because he doesn't like them or dosen't know how to type them on a keyboard what he said earlier. Consensus was made to use them when needed in mainspace. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I try to add macrons on main space pages when I need to, but despite the vast majority of mainstream media sources using them the vast majority of the populace don't. I wouldn't have a clue on if there's a macron in Waimauku, Kumeu, Kaukapapa, etc., nor where to place one if there is. When I am writing articles I almost always use British/New Zealand English spellings simply because it's my default and what I am used to; I don't stop to think about it.

What you're referring to is making a WP:POINT, omitting macrons because you don't know/forget about them is just a simple mistake. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Significant improvements needed in many sections

In response to the discussion above about the lead, I suggest this is held over until a range of issues with the body of the article are addressed. Then the lead should be completely rewritten to follow the body. I grew up in Christchurch, but the article at present does not seem to adequately represent the city. Here are some points that I consider need substantial improvement:

• there is a need for some more coverage of urban and regional planning, given the on-going recovery from the 2011 earthquake, and forecasts for a large increase in the population
• the Central City sub-section beneath Geography needs review. Details of the history of loss and recovery after the February 2011 earthquake is probably worth covering in a separate article, to allow the Geography section to be reworked so that it is more focussed on the city as of 2024, retaining a link to the proposed separate article and a concise summary. Similar comments could apply to some other sections.
• Having said that, it is surprising that "Red zone" appears only once in the body of the article, yet this area is now a significant part of inner Christchurch and is worth a bit more coverage
• the Avon and Heathcote rivers warrant at least a small expansion from the current brief mentions. Similarly, the Estuary, as a major geographic feature, needs some expanded coverage.
• Parks and Gardens needs expansion, given the "Garden City" handle and the great importance of parks to the city, and their popularity with residents and visitors
• the University of Canterbury is a major institution in the city, responsible for bringing large number of students to stay and study. It no doubt has significant economic and social impact, but is barely covered in the article at present
• as I have noted in the separate topic posting above, the Economy section is out of date and requires substantial rework
• the Transport section needs updating, and could do with sub-headings
• although Music is covered reasonably well, the visual arts are not sufficiently covered. Museums and galleries have only a passing mention.
• utilities are poorly covered, with only Electricity mentioned in that section. Water is currently covered under Geography. However, given that significant parts of the city were a swamp when European settlers first arrived, there is an important and interesting topic of land drainage and sanitation in Christchurch that needs to be covered at least briefly, including the wastewater treatment plant and oxidation ponds at Bromley.
• the Sport section needs work to replace at least some of the bulleted lists with prose. As one example of content that could be reviewed, I see no need for bullets listing the skifields that are within easy driving range of the city. It could be argued that individual skifields should not be mentioned at all in this article.
• in my view, the long lists of inner and outer suburbs in the Geography section are tedious for the reader. Perhaps they could be moved to a new list article, with just a link and a summary paragraph.

I may be able to help with implementing some of these suggestions, as part of a team, if a volunteer is willing to establish an improvement project and be a co-ordinator. Marshelec (talk) 07:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

A thorough tidy up appears to be in order. I agree with removing unnecessary lists: making them is a habit common throughout wikipedia and for some editors it is all they do. I think one problem is that articles like this turn into tourist guidebooks and storeroom of fairly trivial information - the story of the week in today's media. Getting a broader overview to put everything in context, even with the requirement to lean towards more recent information, isn't straightforward. To create a balanced sub-section with correct article-wide weighting takes time, requires effort, and means having to check better sources than online library blogs and today's p5 story in The Press. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be worthwhile for a new collaborative project to be established to review a range of articles associated with Christchurch, and implement improvements such as those I have suggested above. The current national parks articles project is an example of how some co-ordination can be helpful. See: Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/National parks. It just needs someone who is willing to take a co-ordinating role, and encourage/ influence other editors to contribute. We can possibly take some inspiration from GA-rated articles about cities. Here are a few examples of diverse approaches to an article about a city, but these have all passed a GA assessment: Honiara, Kraków, Lincoln, Nebraska, Marrakesh, Portsmouth. It is clearly possible to get this article to a similar standard, and I would be happy to contribute if there is someone willing to co-ordinate, and there are a few other willing helpers. Marshelec (talk) 08:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay... I will be able to help (shortly after my wikibreak), we might discuss this at the next Tūranga meetup... to collaborate working on the Chch article and hopefully getting it to GA status. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Kia ora @Alexeyevitch, should we set up a Wikiproject taskforce or something similar for Christchurch? I think there is scope to create a project or taskforce similar to the WikiProject Auckland. It might make it easier for all of us interested to coordinate on improving articles related to the city and region. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 03:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'm happy to organize a WikiProject with you. Most of the Chch articles are lacking info (and in some cases images), they have the potential to be better. (E.g. the North New Brighton and McLeans Island)

As Mike said in the Tūranga meetup: the Christchurch article(s) needed significant improvement.

I'll be happy to organize this WikiProject and other meetups in the city center. :-). Alexeyevitch^(talk) 07:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I will work on the lede in my sandbox for now and put it in the article when it's appropriate. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 02:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

That's great. I suggest that a useful first step is to prepare a project scope, and list the main articles that need to be included as a set for the purposes of improving the main Christchurch article. For instance, there is a good case for a new list article to list all the suburbs, so that this content can be moved out of the main article to make it easier to read (although the context is a little different, see how this has been done at List of suburbs of Auckland). There may be justification for several other new list articles that can provide information that is important, but is too detailed for the main article.

I also have a view that there is a need for a new article that describes in some detail the loss of heritage buildings and other civic infrastructure in the 2011 earthquake, and the recovery. The rationale would be to ensure that there is a good written (and photographic) integrated record of loss and recovery/replacement etc, but avoid having too much of this in the main article. One example that could be included in this proposed new article is the loss of the Bus Exchange, and its replacement by the Bus Interchange, but there will be a great many other notable cases, including heritage buildings, schools and churches, the Christchurch Railway Station etc. It might be practical to document the loss and recovery (if there was a recovery), in a table in a list article. This would be easier to achieve than trying to construct prose, and in some cases there is already a reasonable description in separate articles (for instance Oxford Terrace Baptist Church, and Christchurch railway station, New Zealand). So the proposed table/ list article would be able to link to some existing articles, but would not be limited to those cases.

For the main article itself, I suggest a table listing the main section headings with some brief suggestions of the scope of work that is required in each section. If this is set up as a Wikiproject, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/National parks, it will have a talk page where the proposed scope can be discussed, before the main work gets underway. I am willing to help, but don't want to be the overall co-ordinator.

Marshelec (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

With regards to related list articles and the loss of building stock, allow me to draw attention to the following two articles:

• List of tallest buildings in Christchurch (the file from which the coloured image is created lives on my computer; I have updated it many a time)
• List of historic places in Christchurch

After the earthquakes, I made it my mission to photograph all the listed places and there aren't many that I missed. The article has a section "List of lost historic places" and that is rather incomplete; there are many more of the places listed on that page that have since been demolished.

Either way, those two lists will help with what you are discussing above, Marshelec. Schwede66 04:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Schwede66 has pointed out that there is already an extensive list article List of historic places in Christchurch that presents tables of heritage buildings in Christchurch, including lost heritage. However, at present, this article is not linked or mentioned in the main article, apart from a rather hard-to-find inclusion in the navigation template Christchurch earthquakes at the bottom of the article (and normally the template is collapsed anyway). I recommend a brief section in the main article about lost heritage, with a clear link to the list article. I have also found that there is a book that specifically covers the loss of heritage buildings and notable streetscapes and structures (including rocks) that resulted from the Christchurch earthquake: Christchurch Heritage: A Celebration of Lost Buildings and Streetscapes [4]. Along with other sources, appropriate reference and linking to the list article and also to this book should allow the main article to be revised to remove or reduce content about historical buildings and landmarks that were lost. In particular, I recommend removal from the main article of images of buildings lost in the earthquake.Marshelec (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if this can be approached from a slightly different angle. I don't think Christchurch was particularly notable for its heritage buildings pre-quake, not more so than many other cities only 160 years old. What is perhaps more notable is that they (nearly) all went at one point in time. And, that most of the replacement buildings have all been erected at or soon after that point. In 50 years time people will not be looking at Christchurch and lamenting the lost heritage buildings, they will be looking at all the buildings that are the same age, built with common architectural themes. The title of any subsection should therefore not be 'Lost heritage', but something like 'Christchurch city building design'. One reason for this was the decision not to replace like for like, which did happen in some European cities post war, that had been flattened by bombing. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

This is a good suggestion in my opinion. A more general section on the city's architectural narrative that covers the neo-Gothic origins, mid-to-late 20th century brutalism and the modern post-earthquake rebuild would make a lot of sense. As pointed out above, there are already dedicated articles for the topic of lost heritage buildings. -- David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I might have a crack at expanding the pre-colonial history section. -- David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Kia ora @Traumnovelle, regarding this edit, the terms mahinga kai and kainga nohoanga are cultural terms with a more complex meaning than the simple translations you have replaced them with. This is why I had used them - to make it clear to the reader these things have special significance in Māori culture. I appreciate the use of these terms may not be familiar to some readers, which is why I had also included appropriate translations in parentheses after them.

To clarify why this is important, a kainga nohoanga is not just a "seasonal camp"; the term can also refer to a larger area where such camps were commonly set up to support nearby food gathering operations. Similarly, a mahinga kai is not just a "foraging ground", the term can refer to specific food gathering operations (eel weirs, for example), crop cultivation or foraged food sites such as fernroots. Most critically, attempting to translate these terms to English causes them to lose their connection to much more significant concepts in Māori culture, such as te ahi kā and mana whenua; these concepts are not related by the English terms "foraging ground" and "seasonal camp".

These differences of understanding were central issues in the Ngāi Tahu treaty settlement claims and can be avoided by using the correct cultural term as I had, with a brief translation for the benefit of readers not familiar with them. In all the historical sources I have read (and some of which I have cited), the correct Māori cultural terms are used without an attempt to translate them into English; they are treated as technical/cultural terms, which is the way they should be used in this context.

I would prefer to add them back, though from reading MOS#Foreign words on the use of foreign words I would do so using the {{lang}} template. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Every settlement ultimately has some cultural importance to it's people.

>the term can also refer to a larger area where such camps were commonly set up to support nearby food gathering operations

So it's a vague term? That's all the more reason to describe it with a simple term of what it actually was.

>Similarly, a mahinga kai is not just a "foraging ground", the term can refer to specific food gathering operations (eel weirs, for example), crop cultivation or foraged food sites such as fernroots.

So it'd be better to refer specifically to what is was used for, or as 'X was used for foraging, hunting, and agriculture/crop cultivation'.

>Most critically, attempting to translate these terms to English causes them to lose their connection to much more significant concepts in Māori culture

If it's such a significant concept it'd merit inclusion in the paragraph with an explanation of what those are. I don't even know what te ahi ka and mana whenua actually mean, and certainly no one outside of New Zealand would. Do these concepts actually provide more information to the reader about the greater Christchurch area?

>These differences of understanding were central issues in the Ngāi Tahu treaty settlement claims

Well this isn't a treaty claim, it's an encyclopaedic article that has readers from across the globe.

If this is a complex concept it can be linked to with 'main' tag, assuming an article explaining Maori cultural land beliefs exists. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

A quick heads up to Clovett and others. Don't waste time shoving lots of irrelevant Maori history detail into this article about Christchurch because it will be removed at some point. If you want to keep that stuff then start a separate article although an obvious title eludes me. There is much detail that could be added to this Christchurch article, enough to take up hours of your time. Don't overlook wp:weight. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't call these terms "vague", rather I would call them "not directly translatable to English", which is a good reason to use them without attempting to translate them.

> Do these concepts actually provide more information to the reader about the greater Christchurch area?

Yes, they do. They help to establish that there was a cultural conflict and misunderstanding involved in the initial acquisition of the land by the European settlers. That is a topic that could be greatly expanded in the subsequent section on the European settlement of the city. Currently, there is no mention of Māori in any of the subsequent history sections. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Do they really? Does 'there was misunderstanding involved in the acquisition of land for Christchurch due to Maori cultural concepts' not explain that sufficiently? Although it is a bit hard to judge that given I'm not even sure what you're referring to, as there is currently no section on this. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the meaning of these terms as used in Kemp's Deed was of central importance to series of claims made for Christchurch by Ngāi Tahu at the Native Land Courts as far back as the 1860s. The original purchase promised all kainga nohoanga and mahinga kai would be reserved for Māori ownership. Some of these sites (for example, Puāri, where the former law courts currently are) are right in the heart of modern Christchurch. These places were alienated from Māori ownership because of very narrow and specific translations of what are complex cultural terms (eg, mahinga kai was interpreted by the courts to mean only places with permanent cultivation, which excluded much of the land that was used on a seasonal basis). The topics of land ownership and acquisition are certainly relevant, and at least deserve a mention in a brief history of early Christchurch. Therefore, these Māori cultural concepts and terms are central to those topics, and should be included. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

That linked article doesn't mention those terms, yet I understand just fine what the issue was. The Maori were meant to be set aside reserves, which didn't happen to the proper extent. I fail to see how a translation is the issue here as the reserves they did receive wouldn't even support British farming methods for their population. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The linked article leaves a lot to be desired, and the educational value of it as an encyclopaedic resource would be enhanced if the terms were mentioned, as is the case here. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Well I seem to be able to understand the issue just fine without understanding the Maori cultural concepts. Land was promised to be set aside and most of it wasn't. The point of this article is not to be in depth on Christchurch's history, it's to summarise key and important events of the history. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad you are able to understand the issue without understanding the cultural concepts. However, using the terms in this way is not about making the reader understand in detail what those cultural concepts are; it is merely about making the reader aware that those wider cultural concepts do exist, and that they are relevant to the discussion. If a reader does not understand the issues for some reason, then by researching the cultural terms used in the text they can begin to widen their understanding of the topic. That is why every professional writer I have read so far on the subject of early Christchurch has used these terms, and it is why we should use them here. It improves the specificity and correctness of the writing. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 02:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

That's what tags like 'main' are for. Articles on broad topics don't delve into quite such specific detail on issues. Your inclusion of the terms doesn't even mention or reference that they are cultural concepts, they just look like Maori words that haven't been translated to the majority of readers. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

They were translated, in parentheses, after their first use, as appears to be the norm elsewhere on Wikipedia for use of foreign words in a discussion, and inline with WP:MOS.

If full articles for these cultural concepts existed, I would link to them. They are certainly worthy of their own articles, and I may one day add them. For now though, I think the use of these Māori cultural words was justified in a paragraph specifically discussing early Māori cultural use and occupation of the land that became Christchurch. As you rightly say, this article would be an inappropriate place to go into detail on the exact meaning and interpretation of these terms. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 03:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

What I meant was they look like Maori words that just haven't been translated into the sentence itself. There's no mention of cultural concepts and just having the words in Maori does not do that. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Copied from above by Cloventt-"Yes, they do. They help to establish that there was a cultural conflict and misunderstanding involved in the initial acquisition of the land by the European settlers. That is a topic that could be greatly expanded in the subsequent section on the European settlement of the city. Currently, there is no mention of Māori in any of the subsequent history sections." If this were the case, you have to show why it is notable enough to the development of Christchurch for it to be entered into this article. No, it should not be greatly expanded. Being of relevance to Maori, being of interest to a particular social group, being this decade's cause célèbre, being of interest for its own sake, are all not enough. Even if you can do that, you next have to consider what amount of space in this article should be taken up by it. I have suggested before, the answer will be a couple of sentences. Please remember, that even if Maori history in the 19th century has been neglected by scholars or society to the detriment of us all, that in itself is not a reason to cram as much of it into this article as possible. Our personal opinions about the topic count for nothing - it is what sources say, sources that are given their correct weight. Remember, there was a few hundred Maori in Canterbury in 1840-1850 and virtually none on the Christchurch site. Now, a broader concern I have with this coffee get-together discussion, something that has been expressed elsewhere in Wikipedia about other subject groups, is that it has the potential to cause more harm than good. We mostly all have areas we know something about and areas we know little about. You cannot therefore start allocating jobs to a random collection of people and expect those jobs to be done properly. The group will quickly become as good as its worst editor, bogged down by macrons, list templates and census data, instead of adding properly referenced material that actually improves an article. I know little about geology so I don't edit geology articles, whether asked to or not. I often see editors working on topics I do know something about who are acting in good faith but are making an article worse. Maori as a group have had notably little influence on Christchurch, certainly in comparison with North Island cities. The Deans dealt with local Maori about land acquisition when they settled in Riccarton, as did the French in Akaroa, and there would be a few other notable topics worth mentioning, but not much more. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey there, you said: "Now, a broader concern I have with this coffee get-together discussion", are you refering to the Tūranga monthly meetups? it's difficult to understand to what you're refering to. If so... your reasoning to me is sounding like "I just don't like it", which isn't valid per WP:JDL. Please explan more if that isn't your reason.

Secondly, it's a wiki which means anyone can edit it... we're collaboratively trying to make the chch article(s) better. (they're doing us a favor if they are contributing positively) Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Māori history in Christchurch is certainly relevant to the topic of Christchurch history. A few sentences would seem woefully inadequate to me. There are mountains of literature on the role of Māori in early Christchurch and I’ve had no issues finding plenty of high quality sources on the subject.

If you feel my addition to the start of the history section adds too much weight to the subject, please feel free to get on with the necessary work of expanding the following parts of the history section, which are currently far too brief and have some obvious inaccuracies. That would help to push the balance away from Māori issues. If you feel my brief contributions so far have made the article worse somehow, then all I can say is I completely disagree. They are really pretty restrained considering the amount I could have written on the subject.

You seem to be implying some sort of “pro-Māori” conspiracy at these meetings and amongst editors in general, which is not the case. As I recall at the last meetup more time was spent discussing how much history on local theatres should be included than any issues related to Māori content. If you’d like to volunteer to collaborate on expanding and improving topics around Christchurch, we could certainly use the help! You should consider attending a meetup to help us get the ball rolling.

If your concern is pro-Māori bias, please also consider your own biases. You should also consider the possibility that you may be wrong, no matter how strongly you feel on the subject. If you have knowledge and expertise on the subject of Christchurch history, please use that to contribute to the article. So far it feels like more work has been wasted unproductively arguing on this talk page and reverting edits than actually improving the article. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 10:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Economy section modified - but more is needed

I have made a start at improving the Economy section. I retained almost all the original "Farming" section but changed the tense and it is now presented as history. More fresh content is needed, to better describe the transition that has occurred over time, the rise of new industries, and the reduced reliance on servicing agriculture in the wider Canterbury Region. The problem is where to find good sources. I will keep looking, but more help would be great. It may also be appropriate to cull some of the content about agriculture in the Canterbury Region, and/or transfer it to the article Canterbury Region. Feedback please :)___Marshelec (talk) 23:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree, information about agriculture in Canterbury could be reduced where it isn't directly relevant to Christchurch. I would suggest:

1. Move the "Economic profile in 2023" to the start of the section
2. Rename the "History" section to "Agriculture"
3. Remove basically everything after the first paragraph of that section, but keep the mention of agribusinesses within Ōtautahi that support regional agriculture, plus maybe export via Lyttelton. (A lot of wool used to be exported through there)

Also, the new section is excellent, thank you for adding it. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Restructure history section

Now might be a good time to restructure the sub-headings. Separating it by centuries is a common IMO lazy practice throughout WP. A better divide should be by the dates of major turning points. Some dates that spring to mind are 1859-1876/provincial govt; 1867/Lyttelton tunnel opens; 22-02-2011/earthquake and there are other key dates. What is currently in the 21stC. section is not important enough, not even the mosque killings. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes I agree. There also needs to be work done copyediting the section as there currently is not proper use of paragraphs. There also still may be text worth removing, as I've just removed a sentence about the Spanish flu. —Panamitsu (talk) 11:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the pandemic death toll in the city is worth mentioning. But it only needs the briefest of mentions as part of a narrative about what happened in the city during that time period. You’re completely right, the lack of paragraphs and proper narrative structure is a problem. An otherwise disconnected sentence (like the one on the flu) can fit much better as part of a proper narrative flow. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

The influenza epidemic does need to be included, as 462 deaths is notable by any measure. A link could also made to Bromley Cemetery (as the majority of the victims were buried there) and the Nurses' Memorial Chapel (as two nurses who died are commemorated there; the article doesn't say that yet). The Christchurch Library article also points out that Christchurch was better prepared and thus had a lower death rate, although that might be better dealt with in a new article Spanish flu in New Zealand. Schwede66 21:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Good suggestion.

I assume when you say the mosque massacre isn’t important enough, you mean it isn’t important enough for a heading? If so I agree.

That event should definitely get at least a brief mention somewhere though, it was extremely significant. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Mosques - yes, I mean it has not had an impact on Christchurch which is the measure to use. In simple terms on the death count, the Spanish flu ranks much higher - many more deaths against a smaller population. I think covid can be treated in the same way as the mosque killings - it hasn't had any real effect on chc. What might appear to be a huge event at the time, due often to media coverage, is really not much more than passing news: here today gone tomorrow. About covid, IMO if there is anything notable it is that chc, and nz, did not have any lock down for a year while the rest of the world was stuck indoors and dying en masse Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

The lists of suburbs - what to do ?

My opinion is that the current presentation of the lists of suburbs is tedious for the reader, and provides negligible benefit for the space it occupies on the page. I am also uncertain about whether "inner suburb" or "outer suburb" has any reliable defined meaning. I seek feedback on options (or additional suggestions):

Option 1: Delete all existing lists, add a brief overview paragraph and include a link to the relevant category, where all suburbs are already listed. eg

See also: Category:Suburbs of Christchurch

Option 2: Delete all existing lists, but create a new article: List of suburbs of Christchurch. The main content of the list article would be a presentation of all the suburbs in a sortable table, initially presented in alphabetic order. An initial suggestion for attributes to be included in the table is given below.

List of suburbs

Surburbs of Christchurch

Name	Area (ha)	Coordinates	Electoral ward	Notes
Mairehau	348	43.4988°S 172.6403°E / -43.4988; 172.6403	Innes Papanui

Any such list article largely duplicates the existing category. The infoboxes of suburb articles include a population count, but I hesitate to include this in the proposed table for the list article option, because of the increased maintenance requirement this would create. Overall, I am uncertain about the benefits for the reader of a list article. Some benchmarks are List of suburbs of Canberra, and List of Cape Town suburbs, but these are not inspiring. The article List of suburbs of Auckland appears to have a somewhat different genesis, possibly related to the integration into the "super-city". The "Satellite towns" section also requires some thought. My initial suggestion is to retain this, because it is of interest, and is not particularly large. Feedback on the options please. Marshelec (talk) 02:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd say just stick to the suburb and information useful for the reader trying to find it like the geographical area/local government, information like coordinates and area is better off being on the suburb article itself. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

A benefit of including co-ordinates in template form is that a reader can click on the link to immediately see a map showing where the suburb is located. If there is going to be a list article, then I think this is worth retaining. In comparison, the area is of no real help, and is in the individual suburb article infobox anyway. However, I am still not 100% convinced that a list article is worth having. Perhaps a link to an Open Street Map visualisation showing all suburb names would be better ? Marshelec (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Try this link: [5]. Provided we retain the link to en:Category:Suburbs of Christchurch, then I am inclined to think that a visualisation is actually more useful than a new/separate list article. Marshelec (talk) 03:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't use OpenStreetMaps, it's like Wikipedia but for maps. I've noticed in Auckland there are non-existent suburbs. Why not just link to the Cantebury council's official map? https://mapviewer.canterburymaps.govt.nz/ Traumnovelle (talk) 03:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Correct, OpenStreetMap is user-generated content and therefore not a suitable source for citing material. But I think it would be OK to include a Template:Mapbox or something similar of Christchurch suburbs, which would use OSM for the layer and we add our own markers for suburbs.

Alternatively, Canterbury Maps is actually under an open license (CC-BY 4.0), so we are free to take screenshots and include them. We can use that as a visualisation of suburbs of Christchurch, perhaps with annotations linking to the relevant articles on each suburb. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles make extensive use of maps sourced from Open Street Map, and I am aware of initiatives to increase integration. For the present, I propose to add an Open Street Map via an Infobox frame. The suburb names are represented well._Marshelec (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Side note: the suburbs list say "clockwise", such as "(clockwise, starting north of the city centre)". Initially I was a bit confused about what this means. Does it mean that the suburbs go more south further down the list? I can't think of a use for this, and if a reader was to come looking for a suburb, I assume he/she would expect it to be in alphabetical order. So whatever happens to the list, I think we should sort it alphabetically. —Panamitsu (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

If there is to be a list I think it should be very simple in alphabetical order, much like the notable people lists. Added to each suburb should be its general loction, ie, NW, coastal, hill, directly south of the centre/four aves, and a few words of general description such 'built around an industrial core', newly created post-earthquake. The ariticle on each suburb will have more detail. Christchurch suburbs are notable for being non-definable so any attempt to define them is doomed to failure. Creating template lists with all sorts of data is pointless except in that it gives someone something to do. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh, maybe we're wrong. Toitū te Whenua actually does maintain an "official" list of suburbs in Christchurch as part of their "Suburbs and Localities" dataset. A quick look at the dataset shows that it accounts for some of the vagueness, with some suburbs (such as Papanui and Northcote) having overlapping areas. This entire dataset is CC-BY 4.0 licensed so we can copy information from it as we like. They apparently maintain this for the benefit of the postal system. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

My revised proposal is to remove the lists of suburbs, include the template link to en:Category:Suburbs of Christchurch, add in a sentence or two of introduction, and also add an infobox containing an expandable map. Are there sufficiently strong reasons to create a new list article, when the category provides that same list ? I think that a map showing the location of suburbs is probably more useful than describing them as being east or west etc. Marshelec (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

A map cannot define the exact location of a chc suburb, with only a very few exceptions. That is one of the main reasons why chc suburbs are not suited to being categorised. A general location is the best that can be done. Half the people in chc can 'choose' which suburb they live in depending on which best suits their need at any given time. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, I accept that (and experienced that during my youth in Christchurch anyway). However, all the individual suburb articles I have looked at so far have a coordinate and link to Open Street Map. It doesn't define the boundary, just gives a centre point for the map. If I go ahead with creating a new list article, I still favour including a linked coordinate, for the convenience it provides for readers of the list article to click on the link and see on the map where the suburb is generally located. Building the list article in a sortable table will take a bit of work but I am willing to do it, if there is support. I looked at a few Featured Articles about cities, but there is not a lot of consistency in the treatment of suburbs/ neighbourhoods. However, I found that large lists of suburbs/ neighbourhoods were not in the main featured article - large lists were always in separate list articles. So if there is support, I will go ahead with preparing a draft.__Marshelec (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I have begun work on a separate list article for the suburbs. This draft currently includes 15 out of 88 suburb names that are listed in the main article. I will wait for feedback before proceeding further. See: Draft:Suburbs of Christchurch. Marshelec (talk) 07:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, fair point. I think listing the neighborhoods in a separate article is good. I agree with your point that it occupies space and may be tedious to read for readers. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 07:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the Category:Suburbs of Christchurch has already solved this problem, so I don't think we need a separate list article.

I think a blurb at the top of the category mentioning that there is no formal/official definition of "suburbs" in Christchurch and that they're really just vague locality names as per @Roger 8 Roger's comment above would also be useful to add. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, I will be bold and go ahead with removing the list of suburbs in the article, and replace with some brief narrative, a link to the category, and a map. See what you think. Marshelec (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

That looks really good, though the map doesn't seem to work on my browser. Probably a skill issue on my part David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

That is unexpected. I have now tested the Christchurch page using Edge and Chrome on my laptop. In both cases, the suburbs map presented in the Infobox presents normally as a "thumbnail", and expands correctly when clicked in the top right box. I tried the Wikipedia mobile phone app as well, but it didn't display the map. However, looking at other articles with an interactive map, it seems that there is a consistent limitation with interactive maps in Infoboxes - they don't work in the mobile phone app._Marshelec (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I suggest that the mobile phone app sucks, which is why I'm not using it. I use desktop view on my phone, which isn't ideal but at least it shows me everything. Schwede66 00:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Images in the Infobox

Does anyone have any sugestions for a better image instead of the current one of New Regent st. We should have a better image portraying the city's rebuild... maybe the Terrace? Or maybe a better image of New Regent st. If no objections are made, I'll likely change it.

Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

When I think of Christchurch I think of Cathedral Square and the ChristChurch Cathedral, which could be an option. Although this might not be a good idea due to damage. —Panamitsu (talk) 10:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

This may be a good image:

I note that when it's restored a new image of it will replace it. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The infobox images look great. Good improvement. I suggest we replace one of the images (maybe "Avon River with Christchurch Convention Centre Precinct, Christchurch, New Zealand" as it's the second instance that shows the Avon) with something that shows Banks Peninsula. Schwede66 00:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I've had a poke around and offer the following Banks Peninsula photos for consideration.

Hover over the images to see some notes. See what you think. Schwede66 01:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I like the second one and fourth one the most... I like how colorful they are. The third one looks a bit dull. The monochrome shot is good, but it's not as good as the second one and fourth. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 01:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I've put the fourth image into the infobox. Schwede66 19:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

This is not a tourist brochure nor a CCC pamphlet. I suggest we change our thought process entirely, see - Although this might not be a good idea due to damage The objective of the photos is to present Christchurch as it is now, worts and all. The image of chc central is not of chc central, its of a river; the picture of Akaroa is not of chc, it's of Akaroa, a 90 minute drive away. An image of the Manchester/St Asaph/Tuam Sts area would be a better reflection of Chc now, than most of the images being used - ie, remaining quake damage and road cones. Being well taken with a fancy camera is preferable to cell phone snaps but that in itself is no reason to use an image. I agree, Cathedral Sq is the centre, so show it, including the remains of the Cathedral. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

An image of St Asaph st and Tuam st or the derelict Sol Square will be silly in the infobox. I would argue that the New Brighton Pier is more worthy then the cathedral (in the infobox) untill it's restored. And it would also look silly for a random street in a neighborhood to be featured in the infobox, something that "truly" represents the city. The current images look really good IMO. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 00:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

This is exactly the problem - you don't get it. Yes, the images should reflect Christchurch, they shouldn't reflect a newly built building unless that building does reflect Chc. If you really don't understand that I can't say much more. A derelict site is a good reflection of Chc now because until very recently most of the inner city looked like that, AND, it reflects the earthquakes. The wording beneath a photo of rubble would say why it is rubble and why that is a reflection of Chc. I think the best rubble photo is of the cathedral. Akaroa should be removed immediately because that is silly in the extreme. If you want to improve this article I suggest there is no alternative but to do research and thinking, which takes time. Adding a few pretty snaps is doing none of that. This is not a promotion of chc. It is at the tail end of a decade of enormous upheavel and that is what should be reflected in photos. I suggest some thought is given to the description beneath the images. For the cathedral something like : 'The remains of chc cathedral, the iconic heart of the city, left there for ten years because no decision was made about what to do with it' Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The reason I said "Although this might not be a good idea due to damage" is because I think we should avoid giving the false impression that the city is still full of damage, and an image of a damaged cathedral in the infobox could do that. This makes it difficult because the cathedral, in my view, is the most iconic part of the city. A caption, as you suggested, is probably the best way to get around that. —Panamitsu (talk) 01:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I support including an image of the Christchurch cathedral, as it is now, as one of the images in the Infobox. My reasons: (a) the city has been profoundly altered by the 2010-2011 earthquakes, and in my view there is no better way of showing this than depicting the cathedral as it is today, (b) Cathedral Square is the physical centre of the city, and has always been a focal point, (c) the cathedral has regularly been used in symbology and images depicting Christchurch, (d) the debates about what to do with the damaged cathedral have been protracted and regularly in the news (ie it is highly notable).Marshelec (talk) 03:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Marshelec's reasons for including a photo of the cathedral in current condition with bracing and printed façade. That said, I can't see any suitable photos on commons that show the current state of the cathedral. Something similar to this image from the CCC would be best but this is not under an open license. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 03:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree too. The cathedral image is sufficient to show the remaining city damage I think. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, but an image of the derelict Sol Square site will be silly. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 04:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

This image has good colors:

Alexeyevitch^(talk) 05:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I note this is an image that we could use in the city section maybe earthquake? And we'll add a bit of info on the restoration work in the city E.g. Te Kaha stadium and Metro Sports Facility. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 06:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

What image should we replace? I'm thinking the one of Banks Peninsula as mentioned by Roger 8 Roger.

I've had a look around Commons for an image that we could use, but haven't found a good one viewed from Cathedral Square (like the position of the image on ChristChurch Cathedral). —Panamitsu (talk) 03:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Last time I looked, Banks Peninsula was part of Christchurch. Schwede66 05:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that discussion happens in every city worldwide - the difference between a city and the administrative area based in the city. I don't think there is a generally accepted position to take. I am of the opinion the two are different and should be treated differently. An interesting point is that sometimes the admin area doesn't have the name of the main city inside it and in that case it appears the two are more likely to be treated as separate entities. In the UK, London is often treated as being the area withing what is called Greater London, so the word 'Greater' is dropped. I think that does not happen in Manchester where there is a similar admin area known as Greater Manchester and the word Greater is kept. For NZ, we have the admin areas around Akl and Wlg with names not including Akl and Wlg. I wonder if we would be having this discussion if the Chc admin area was called 'Canterburt East' or similar. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I think there's also Christchurch vs Christchurch City or Christchurch CBD. —Panamitsu (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Convention Centre Precinct

Given that there is an active discussion on this talk page between many editors, could I draw everyone's attention to the move discussion for the Convention Centre Precinct? It could do with more input. Schwede66 00:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Amalgamations

One aspect that isn't covered yet, at least not in a comprehensive way, is the history of amalgamations that has resulted in what we now understand to be Christchurch. If I know this right, Richmond was the first area to be amalgamated with Christchurch (it was split off in 1890 from the Avon Road District). The last amalgamation was Banks Peninsula in 2006. The former isn't mentioned yet, and the latter is listed in the section on "Local government". Obviously, there was heaps in between those two amalgamations (with the biggest chunk in 1903).

Question is – where should this topic be covered? Under "History", "Geography", "Local government", or a new chapter? Meanwhile, I'll start a table of amalgamations in my sandbox. Schwede66 06:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no "right answer", but my inclination is to describe the history of amalgamations under the Local government heading. The topic is of interest, but I note that the Christchurch article is already quite long, so if there is content for a lengthy new section on this topic, it is worth considering whether a separate article would be the best approach.Marshelec (talk) 07:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The list of amalgamations in my sandbox may be complete now. Gosh, there was a lot going on over the years. There would certainly be enough for a standalone article. Schwede66 10:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I've moved my sandbox into draft space: Draft:Amalgamations with Christchurch City. I've had a look for other "amalgamation" articles but there isn't really anything decent based on this category. That said, I noticed that we don't have an article covering Christchurch as a territorial local authority. Then again, the relevant template informs me that we don't have district articles for any of our cities, unlike for the true districts (i.e. those that aren't cities). I guess we can discuss whether we want the scope to be on amalgamations or on the district. Either way, it wouldn't be much different, I suppose. Schwede66 01:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Looking at other city articles with a dedicated history article, for example History of Manchester, some have a "Civic history" or "Governance" section. We could possibly merge your article into the new Draft:History of Christchurch, New Zealand article if that makes sense. Either way I'd like to include some of the info from the amalgamations article into the main history article, even if it is just a quick summary and a link to the amalgamations article. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 07:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd class it as "local government" as the city expanded largely independently of amalgamations, which in many cases happened a considerable time later.

I think the largest amalgamation was actually in 1989. Christchurch was a bit of an oddity as far as urban expansion went - instead of a large flock of "mistletoe boroughs" hanging on to it (as Dunedin and Invercargill had - a large proportion of which were absorbed around the time of the First World War), the urban area expanded into a circle of tiny counties which surrounded the city and survived until the abolition of counties - including suburbs as close to the city as Fendalton. Some parts of those counties did amalgamate with the city, but erratically and inconsistently - by 1989, Heathcote County had been so nibbled-at by the city that it was only a tiny area between Cashmere, Ferrymead and the summit road, smaller than the city ifself. Daveosaurus (talk) 10:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Central city section

I propose to substantially reduce the content in the section: Christchurch#Central_City. Looking at FA and GA rated articles about cities, the main subdivision Geography usually doesn't contain the kind of detailed content we currently have in that section (typically, there is just a high level description of divisions/part of a city). Plus, there is a separate article on the topic of Christchurch Central City anyway. Content in this section that is not already included in the separate article could be relocated there. (Disclosure: part of my motivation is that I want to add more about the physical geography and geology of Christchurch, but I am a bit concerned about the overall length and readability of the article as a whole, so it would be good to find some content to trim). Any comments before I go ahead ?_Marshelec (talk) 07:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I do think it is necessary to mention the rebuild of the central city. I also think the televison section is poor and and could be merged or removed completely. CTV stuff is notable and can go in the history section with a citation. The fith paragrpaph needs a trim and the sixth paragraph should be removed trimmed significantly then merged into the earthquakes section. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree. There’s way too much detail in this article about the central city. Schwede66 09:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Later 20th century section needs expansion

State housing is an important part in the growth of Christchurch, maybe another sentence and citation on immigration? and the CTV stuff needs to be referenced. I also think the image in the central city section (from 2007) is inappropriate and should be replaced by another image, maybe the ChristChurch Cathedral image I talked about earlier which has beautiful colors and depicts the city very well. I'm happy to start working / improving content in these sections. Your contributions are appreciated. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The direction I had been moving in was having sections based around major cultural shifts. In my mind this would be similar to:

1. Provincial growth would cover the period up to WW1, pretty much 1920.
2. Mid-20th century for the "stable" years between 1920 and the 1960s/1970s, possibly a short section.
3. Suburban growth for the rapid growth between the late-1960s and late-1980s. The suburban growth really took off with the state housing initiatives in the late 1960s; you're totally correct this should be covered.
4. Modern city for the 1990s and 2000s when a lot of city icons like the trams, gondolas, etc occurred and the city started shaking off the "old-fashioned english city" reputation.
5. And then a section for 2010-today to cover the earthquake and recovery.

Suburban growth and Modern city could possibly be combined. I'm open to suggestions on the section titles. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, it is important to cover the industrialization of the city, and that could lead us into the state housing section (and include the Ballentyne's fire)

In my view, it's 1970-today because it will be a bit awkward having the Commonwealth games in another section. And the image in the central city section should be removed, if no objections then I'll change it to an image that represents the city better. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 23:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Coverage of wildlife

I have searched for sources about wildlife in Christchurch. Orana Park and Willowbank, and the Isaac Conservation Park / Ōtukaikino walkway could be mentioned as man-made wildlife parks or reserves, and wading birds are common in the estuary. However, apart from those, sources are somewhat limited. The city is a gateway for wildlife tourism to Akaroa and Kaikōura etc, but it is not clear that the main urban area of Christchurch is really notable for its wildlife. A possible exception could be the nesting of rare and endangered Black-billed gulls over three seasons in the ruins of an earthquake-damaged building. Ducks, geese, pigeons and other introduced birds don't seem worth much mention. Overall, I don't think wildlife warrants much coverage in the main Christchurch article, and some existing mentions could be trimmed. My view is that rare birds seen in a reserve or the estuary could be covered in articles about those places, and not in the main article. Here are some sources about rare birds in Christchurch, just in case others think it is worth including in the main Christchurch article: 2015 - [6], 2015 - [7], 2016 - [8], 2021 - [9], and [10], 2022- [11], 2023 - [12], 2023 - [13]. I will wait for feedback before trimming any existing content._Marshelec (talk) 09:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Whales? An unfortunate 30-ton sperm whale recently beached at South Brighton. Other less gargantuan species are not uncommon along the coastline. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

There is an effort to bring kororā back to the area with a protected colony reserve out at Godley Head. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

That would be a good addition to Godley Head. Similarly, some further content about Hector's dolphins could be added to Lyttelton Harbour. I don't think either of these warrant mention in the main article._Marshelec (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, there was some thinking at Christchurch City Council to make a corridor for birds that would connect Riccarton Bush with the Port Hills. Hence I designed Wainui Street (Riccarton Road to Peverell Street) with lots of room for planting native trees; that was some 20 years ago. They never carried on with that theme; south of Peverell Street, the road is as wide and treeless as ever. Not sure whether the council published anything about this (usually they do and their archive website goes back that far), but given that it didn't go anywhere, it's probably not worth bothering with. I thought the idea was quite neat, though. Schwede66 20:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Lede

I've rewritten two paragraphs in the lede and there is still somewhat long way to go until it looks "complete". Does anyone have any suggestions on anything else on what should be mentioned? I mainly focused on the history part, but we still need to summarize other immportant parts of the article. (see: WP:LEAD). I will be a lot more active in May and will be able to help improving and adding content. Your contributions are appreciated. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 05:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The progress on the lead is looking really good imo. It covers the most important stuff and is about the right size I think.

Could we use the article structure as a guide? Maybe one or two sentences from each section, pulling key notable facts for each subject? Looks like we have some of that already but we risk making it too long. We could probably trim a few sentences from the history if we need to. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 10:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, your welcome to help improve the content in the lede and elsewhere and get it to somewhere until it looks complete. I still hope to expand other parts of this article, adding refs and eventually getting this article up to GA status, hopefully by the end of this year. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

History of Christchurch - splitting content out into a new article

The main article is currently at 9653 words of readable prose, and is at the point where some reduction or splitting of content is warranted, based on WP:SIZE. Looking at the article as it stands, I think the History section is in need of significant improvement, and splitting the content out as a new article and rewriting a shorter version as a summary could be one way of achieving improvements and also keeping the size of the main article under control. (Note: I am certain that there are further topics that are worth adding to the main article, so we need to look for opportunities to trim, to keep the size to a reasonable limit). There is a lot of content in the history section that in my view is too detailed for the main article. I have looked at other articles about major cities to see some examples of how history has been treated. There is usually a link to a more detailed separate article about the history of the city, and in many cases a separate timeline article. See: Manchester, Boston, Winnipeg, (all three are Featured Articles), Bangalore (GA rated), Auckland and Melbourne. We already have History of Canterbury, and this contains some recent history of Christchurch. My suggestion is to remove most Christchurch-specific content from that article and merge it into a new article specifically about the history of Christchurch, taking all the detailed content from the existing Christchurch article. It would then be necessary to write a summary for the main article. Feedback please. _Marshelec (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Those are some good examples, and we can use them as guidance in a way... (see: Lincoln, Nebraska (GA), the history section is massive and I would assume christchurch's does not need to be as big as theirs. But we need to summarize the immportant parts, likewise with the lede (which still needs improvement). I think we already did a relatively good job with the history, but needs trimming of excessive detail. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 07:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

There is a risk in copying what other articles do too closely. Each city is different, sometimes significantly so. This will require different subsections and different emphasis depending on the city. NZ cities will all have followed reasonably similar historical patterns so their articles will have a certain uniformity. However, articles on the history of Christchurch and the history of Petra should be quite different. Even less extreme examples, such as the histories of most European cities, will differ from colonial cities in Australasia. I think this means some thought is given on how best to structure the history of Christchurch rather than simply taking a template structure from somewhere else and building on that. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Then don't. We'll still include the significant Māori and European history alike. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Don't what? You have brought up another problem. If you cannot see the difference between 'the history of Christchurch' and the history of Maori and the history of Europeans who live in Christchurch then there is a grave risk that the resultant article will not be as good as it should be. If history isn't your area of expertise then please say so. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

It depends on what you define as "expertise", I am well informed about the history of Christchurch. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Yup, agreed, too long. A dedicated History of Christchurch article is a good idea.

I think I’m finished with my wee project to expand that section and give it a better narrative flow, so we’re probably at a good point to pull that out to its own article. A dedicated article is actually a great solution - I was struggling to avoid adding all that excessive detail that made it in there. There is so much to cover and so much more I could add, a dedicated article is a good place to dump all that.

Once we have a dedicated article for the subject we can probably boil that section of this article down to just “bookends”: Māori and European settlement, then major recent events. That is the best way to keep the section short imo. Readers are likely to be most interested in how things started and how they’re going now. Everything else they can go to the dedicated article. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 10:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with Cloventt. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

With thanks to User:Gadfium, there is now a helpful Section sizes template at the head of this talk page, and also in the articles Auckland, and Wellington. At present, the History section of the Christchurch article contains 36.3% of the total content. In comparison, the history section of Auckland contains 10.4% of the total of that article, and the history section of Wellington contains 7%. If a new separate article on the History of Christchurch is created, I suggest aiming for the content of the summary history section in this article to be between a quarter and one third of the present. This would be in the range 20 to 28 kbytes._Marshelec (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the numbers there are wikitext bytes, rather than word count. So those numbers would include the inline citations. That section is much more heavily sourced than other parts of the article which would inflate the byte count.

I've been trying to find a decent tool for analysing word count per-section and per-paragraph, and I haven't found anything I can get to work. I'm starting to think I should write something to do it, or maybe volunteer to expand the functionality of the built-in prosesize mediawiki plugin. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Current stats in words are:

1. top: 569
2. Toponymy: 230
3. History: 3369 (35%)
4. Geography: 1241
5. Demographics: 889
6. Economy: 1199
7. Government: 269
8. Culture and entertainment: 1354
9. Sport: 835
10. Eduction: 159
11. Transport: 745
12. Utilities: 535

So I was wrong, looks like wikitext is a good proxy for word size. We should try and get History down to about 1000 words I think. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

1500 words, in my opinion. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 22:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks likewise, and I was analyzing this article today and most sections could get better refs or expanding content. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 22:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

There is a lot of good improvement already IMO. However, before this article goes further off course and creates problems for future editors, I suggest creating at least two further sub-sections: 'Maori settlement in the area before 1850' and 'post-2015 events of interest', or words to that effect. These new sections are not about the history of Christchurch, but information about them is being squeezed into that history section. That would solve the problem of eager editors wanting to put this week's media headline into the history article thus filling it with current events and trivia, and would also allow the macronauts to do what makes them feel good. It will also deal, to a certain extent, with the gross breach of the obligation to create an article with the correct weighting. If that is not done we will end up with something of the level of a Year 9 essay rather than an encyclopedic article no lower that Y13 standard. Alexeyevitch, you can be as well read as you like about Christchurch history but knowing facts and dates does not mean you understand how to report its history. In a similar vein, you first have to see what the sources say and from that starting point you create an article; you don't start with an article structured in your mind and then go looking for sources to support your predetermined structure. On a separate issue, I suggest using 'governance' rather than 'government' as a sub-title. That would better describe certain broader issues specific to Christchurch such as water chlorination. 'Housing' might warrant a sub-section too. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

We already have a "Pre-European settlement" second-level heading under the top-level "History" heading, which is roughly equivalent to your suggestion of "Maori settlement in the area before 1850". Do you mean we should make these topics their own top-level headings rather than including them as part of the "History" section? If so I disagree.

I'm really uncertain what you mean by "These sections are not about the history of Christchurch". Pre-European settlement and recent events are absolutely part of the history of Christchurch. That is the appropriate place to include them.

I agree with your suggestion of "Governance" over "Government". David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 00:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Cloventt. Yes, I meant taking the pre-settlement subsection out of the history section and using it to start a new section. That Maori stuff has got almost nothing to do with Christchurch. Further suggestions are to add a subsection on 'Preparations for the settlement'. That would be about the Canterbury Assoc and the advanced team who came out to prepare for the first settlers. There, and IMO only there, is where mention can be made of local Maori because land was bought from them by the association. Additionally, there must be inclusion of the Deans family somewhere. Either a separate subsection or possibly in the preparation subsection because there was some interaction between Godley and the Deans family. The Deanses also bought land from the local Maori and used Maori names so some reference to the local Moari might fit in there too. I prefer a separate subsection for the Deans Family because they were independent from the association. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

If there is already content in the article that looks good, then that's good. We still have a long way to go before this is article is ready for a GAN, but I think we are further ahead then the Wellington article. I support having a new article called "History of Christchurch" that will give an extensive overview of its history, but we still need to do a good job summarizing content in this article. And, we don't write encyclopedia articles in Y13, which is entirely irrelevant to Wikipedia itself, and I'm not guaranteeing you with what I said there is necessarily "true", because I don't even go there nor do I even care about it. Let's focus on building this encyclopedia collectively, with a "particular" interest in New Zealand articles. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 01:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I have begun the process of splitting out to a dedicated page here: Draft:History of Christchurch, New Zealand. Feedback and support to get the article published is appreciated. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 04:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I suggest the new page be simply History of Christchurch to match this article. It can have a hatnote to History of Christchurch, Dorset. It would be polite to post on the talk page of that article to see if anyone objects to overwriting the current disambiguation page.-Gadfium (talk) 05:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I've asked on the relevant talk page, but personally I think that History of Christchurch, New Zealand is a more specific title and matches the status-quo of the current redirect. I am pretty neutral on this issue. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 08:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The draft article looks great, this has potential to be a GA. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 06:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done, from the AfC reviewer who accepted the draft, to notify anyone who wants to proceed with the WP:SPLIT cleanup. Cheers, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 19:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The articles have now been split (see History of Christchurch, New Zealand), and I've drastically reduced the length of the history section in this article. It is currently around 650 words, so there is scope to at least double it.

I've gone for early settlement and recent events as per other discussions on this talk page. If anyone is keen to expand it a bit please feel welcome. I've tried to cover the subjects in this summary section with due weight. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 06:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

What is "modern history"?

We have a "modern history" section, but some of its contents are older history than what's in the "provincial growth" section, which makes it un-chronological. Is there a specific year period for "modern"? Is this a period described as "modern" by historians or have we just named it "modern"? If there is no theme in the section I think that it might be best to name it "20th century" or something along those lines, but if memory serves, I do think we've had the discussion of changing the name away from "20th century". 📊Panamitsu (talk) 00:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

We just named it "modern" I think. The period covered there is roughly from the end of WW1 onwards. If you have a better suggestion for the name please change it, I couldn't think of one.

Regarding the chronology, a strict chronology can be just a list of disconnected events, which is a bit dry to read. The original version of the "20th century" section was like that. A good historical narrative connects related events through time to tell a story, which is what I tried to do with the bits I wrote. I agree though, the crossing point from "European settlement" to "Modern history" is clunky at the moment.

FYI all of this might be moot because it seems we have consensus to trim the history in this article down quite a lot and spin it off to a dedicated History of Christchurch, New Zealand article. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 01:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I think modern history means anything after the mediaeval period. In the NZ context those terms don't fit well. People often use modern history to mean anything in living memory or worst, what was on yesterday's 6.00 news. I try to describe anything very recent as current affairs (eg 6 months or so because it is usually still happening or hasn't been put in context in people's minds. I'd call anything back 20-30 tears as contemporary history, avoiding the term modern. IMO, as I said earlier, I think we should not put anything in the history section after around 2015 or at a stretch 2019 to include the mosque shootings which have now sort of settled into the memory (there is nothing ongoing like court cases or gun legislation) Anything else could be in a separate section called current affairs. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

A collaborative Wikiproject for Christchurch-related articles ?

I have posted a notice on the WikiProject New Zealand noticeboard seeking feedback about establishing a collaborative project for improving Christchurch-related articles. Please review and provide feedback at this link: Wikipedia:New_Zealand_Wikipedians'_notice_board#A_collaborative_Wikiproject_for_Christchurch-related_articles_?_Marshelec (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Remaining work to get over the line to GA

What work is left to get this article ready for a GA review? I have made contributions and so don't feel comfortable being a GA reviewer, but I could perhaps do a "dry run" review to identify problems? David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 22:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to be negative but the history section has been worse than decimated. Only 20% of what's left of it is is about the history of Christchurch, and that 20% needs further edits. Please do not use museum primary evidence as a source. The section now has two subsections, one about the land use before the history of Christchurch and the other about current affairs. I suggest putting back what was there a month ago and starting again. Far from being at GA status, what is there now is at starter level. Moving stuff to a separate 'history of Christchurch' article does mean you can leave the history subsection in the Chch article bare. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

You may have missed the 'History of Christchurch - splitting content out into a new article' discussion above where it was decided to reduce the amount of content in the history section and move it to a dedicated article.

Only 20% of what's left of it is about the history of Christchurch [...] The section now has two subsections, one about the land use before the history of Christchurch and the other about current affairs. - as I think I have mentioned before, the land before and during the establishment of the European city is absolutely a relevant part of the history of the city. I think you are the only person to express a differing opinion on that so far. When exactly do you consider the history of Christchurch to begin? David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 23:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

No, I did not miss that discussion, or rather the discussion to reduce the section size, but I did not follow it regularly. I assumed it would be a smaller version of what was there, with some improvements. As I said, that does not mean the remnant text can be a pile of rubble - it means the size of the text is reduced, all in proportion and with correct weighting. Any person reading what is there now would have zero knowledge of the history of Christchurch - zero. Please don't use primary evidence as a source: that is a fundamental part of wikipedia. That stuff should only be used if there are no proper RSSs available (which in this case there are, plenty) or for very obvious matters of fact, such as the time of an earthquake, or the current mayor. Land before chc existed is relevant? How, in what way? Please, tell us, and remember, we don't just want your opinion, or the opinion of a primary source, we need RSSs. I think you mean I'm the only one who wants to follow WP rules and guidelines, so let's be clear about that - consensus doesn't mean its right. If there is going to be a short subsection on the history of chc that takes up three to four paragraphs, that is easy to do but you first need a balanced structure in mind in order to apply the correct weighting, otherwise you end up with a totally distorted disproportionate and non-informative chunk of words. It doesn't help if it is taken from a primary source. RSSs say chc began in 1850. There was some relevant detail about its beginning, back to around 1840 and an even smaller amount of relevant detail from earlier still. Remember, before the city was founded there was nothing there, nothing. A Maori walking track does not constitute settlement; a speculative seasonal gathering of a few Maori around the cliffs south of the estuary is not a proper settlement and even if it was it is far away from the city that was established in 1850. To say otherwise is judging the past from the position of the present. To be more positive, I suggest the first step should be to create an overall framework to show the desired structure and weighting. From there some detail can be inserted which will be easier to do without to go off course or getting bogged down in detail, which is what has happened now. To end up with three or four paragraphs it will mean some important detail will have to be only one or two sentences, which will require some thought to the overall writing style to make sure the resultant text flows properly and isn't a disjointed collection of facts. If you want, I can suggest a framework here but it might not be till later today. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, please do suggest your preferred framework. I am keen to collaborate with you on this subject. Further up it was mentioned we should aim for about 1500 words.

Remember, before the city was founded there was nothing there, nothing. This is incorrect. As has been discussed elsewhere, the area was an important mahinga kai and did in fact have semi-permanent settlements along the banks of the river attached to those activities. The history of Māori customary use of this area is an important fact to mention in a complete history of the city. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 02:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Christchurch has notable Māori history, there was a Māori pā in South New Brighton, hāngī pits and wharenui were plentiful in the eastern suburbs before they were burned down/destroyed by European colonizers, (not the western suburbs). It would be silly not to mention this IMO. (Note: that not many online sources mention this, it's mostly offline sources.) Alexeyevitch^(talk) 02:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

On the topic of the History section: I have removed the “Recent events” subtitle, as I think sections should be either on broad historical periods or trends, or on specific events. As is, it does feels like there is a big chunk of time missing between the settlement periods and the major tragedies of the present era. Maybe this would be something more productive to focus on, Roger 8 Roger? At least it would feel more positive than debating the inclusion of the Māori settlement era (which personally, I think is an important period to cover in this article). — HTGS (talk) 07:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Very important to cover the Māori settlement in the area, I agree with Roger more detail should be covered. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 09:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

On reflection I think it will be impossible to write a short complete history in 3 to 4 paragraphs. Even if it were, it would be quickly messed up by people tampering with it. However, how about a list structure? A dozen or so dates of key events followed by a sentence to explain them. That would be easier to handle I think. What happened before 1840-1850 in the area is not chc, whether it is volcanic activity, maori collecting eggs or migrating birds flying overhead. It is not Christchurch in any way. It is a description of the area on which Christchurch was established. The only way that detail is relevant to the history of chc is if it had a direct bearing on the establishment of the city in 1850. That applies to the Deans farm, the dealings with the French at Akaroa, land purchase from maori (not what they had for dinner on south shore beach - that stuff can go into a separate section if it is deemed notable and relevant enough). Some cities develop over time from a small initial settlement, so some early detail is relevant. The Roman settlement on the Thames is relevant to the history of London because it is when the city started. Christchurch had no earlier settlement to carry on with. Even if there were some maori roaming around the wider area there was no pa/village on the planned site - chc started from scratch. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

With a similar viewpoint to Roger 8 Roger, I'll make some suggestions on what to improve. I am not familiar with the history of Christchurch, or even Christchurch itself, which I think is useful for peer review.

In The British settlement section I am a bit confused about why the farm Riccarton is mentioned. Riccarton appears throughout the article, so it may be due for inclusion, but as a reader I don't know why it's there. With that being said, I also think that "Their farm took over the abandoned holdings of a failed pioneer farm" is overly detailed, but you see, I don't know.

After the British settlement section there is a big jump and we're suddenly in 2011. What happened between then? Now of course I don't know much about Christchurch but I think there should be some text about how the city was built, industrialisation, etc. Given the fame of the Ballantyne's fire I wonder if that could have a sentence, but I am on the fence on whether that is excessive.

I'm also wondering if the Port Hills fires section could be removed or shortened as it doesn't appear to have impacted Christchurch that much, despite the amount of land burnt. ―Panamitsu (talk) 11:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the fires seem to be a bit of a recency bias, but I wonder if that’s not a bad thing? Readers will expect to learn something about the “history” (implied older), but also to see events they feel are significant. Maybe we see how they sit after everything else is done, or re-assess in a year or two. — HTGS (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm a local here, naturally I would keep an eye on how the article and talk page is doing.

I said this before, there was notable Māori settlement called Puāri in central Christchurch and Ōtautahi near the fire station. This article covers all of chc not just the central city, thus, the Māori pā in South New Brighton is relevant here... Cashmere irrelevant here, no notable Māori settlement in Cashmere, ok. (Note: this isn't published in online mainstream media which doesn't make it irrelevant, there are many great book sources in the CCC libraries.)

I would be more than happy to improve content relating to pre-European colonization of the area.

There needs to be more context on industrialization and the 20th century stuff. In fact, the entire history section could see substantial improvement.

Maybe restore some content deleted? Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the best solution is for an editor (not me) to write a summary of the History of Christchurch article and pick out the narrative points they think matter the most. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 18:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@user:Panamitsu I agree about the Ballantynes fire and the Port Hills fires. This is currentism - "not important because I don't remember it". The Deans were important because they were the first European family to settle in Canterbury and because they'd bought land from local Maori. They were therefore a bit of a problem for the Canterbury Assoc. that wanted to set up from scratch a model English city. It didn't help that the Deans were Presbyterian Scots, their farm next to the soon-to-be built Anglican city - Hagley Park kept them conveniently apart. But the Deans are regarded as first Europeans of the city, with Jane Dean who lived for decades after 1850 treated as the city's matriarch. I've said my bit about these Maori pa - please show us how they were relevant to the establishment of Christchurch, otherwise they are not relevant. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

It would not be relevant if the article was about the establishment of Christchurch, but it's not... Māori pā and settlements relevant here - it will recognize the indigenous settlers here, the European settlers and industrialization should also be mentioned. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Alexeyevitch, pls look at wp:synth. That is what I mean by the requirement for a direct connection. You are connecting (synthesing) two unconnected facts and pretending there is a direct link between them. That is called wp:original research. Your excuse is that this is about Christchurch, not the establishment of Christchurch, but that makes no difference. It's actually about the history of Christchurch anyway. Christchurch was started and still exists irrespective of the Maori pa and walking routes. You are joining two separate topics and trying to create a direct connection between them. An example of a direct connection is Akaroa. That town existed before the British took over-the current town is an extension of the French settlement (streets are the same layout and names as the French started them for example). The "purchase" of land from Maori in Canterbury by the Canterbury Assoc would be a direct link, but that is a relatively minor point of detail that warrants half a sentence, not a whole paragraph of subsection. If you want to put into wikipedia more detailed information about Maori in the region then pls do it somewhere else, such as in a specific article. You can then add that to the "See also" section on this page, a section specifically for articles with a loose, indirect, connection to this article. Finally, please try not to consider anything you hear of read in the media, the Waitangi Tribunal or government administrative entities which says or implies Maori and non-Maori having a direct partnership as if they are one but but also separate. Look at the facts as determined by proper independent reliable secondary sources, viewed in context with correct weighting. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I've made my point already but... Māori detail should be mentioned. There are "proper independent reliable secondary sources" about Māori in the CCC library, online I have had bad results (even from ProQuest), and from low-quality sources (see WP:OFFLINE). Alexeyevitch^(talk) 23:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

In my view, the indigenous occupation and use of the area of Christchurch before and during European settlement is relevant to the city. A reader of this article would expect there to be some coverage of that subject. I think you are alone in your view that we should exclude information about the area prior to 1850. I do not think it is productive to continue litigating that point. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 23:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Boundaries of Christchurch

In the lede and under Geography, Christchurch is described as being "bounded by the Banks Peninsula". That is confusing and wrong, I believe. The Banks Peninsula is part of Christchurch and it is bounded on all sides by the Pacific Ocean, or am I missing something here?  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

External link description

There is a tourist guidebook about Christchurch in the external link section that has been described on the link, correctly, informatively and unambiguously to the vast majority of readers, as 'Christchurch, Canterbury'. That description has recently been changed to something far less informative, adding a Maori name. To clarify - the correct name to use in the description of the linked website is the commonly used English name for what the linked site is about; the title of the guidebook and any official name are not necessarily the names to use - WP rules are quite clear about that. The guidebook is about Christchurch, the name used throughout the booklet. If CCC decides to use a mixed name for the guidebook's title - for legal or policy reasons - then that is pointedly contrary to common usage and has no bearing on WP. The guidebook's mixed title does not represent an NZGB official name anyway, making the use of it in a WP link even more contrary to common usage. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it'd be better to just change the text to the domain name, "ChristchurchNZ.com" as "Ōtautahi Christchurch" is really just the name of the place. The name of the organisation also appears to be "ChristchurchNZ".[14] ―Panamitsu (talk) 03:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Kia ora Roger, are you referring to my revert of your revert [15]? It's the website for ChristchurchNZ, which is the Christchurch City Council economic development agency. They're responsible for promoting Christchurch to tourists/investors. Their website features a prominent heading saying "Ōtautahi Christchurch", so I interpreted that as the correct title of their website.

I agree with Panamitsu that we could use the name of the org, which is ChristchurchNZ. The "Ōtautahi Christchurch" name seems to be part of an ongoing rebrand. [1] David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 03:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, 'Ōtautahi Christchurch' is appopriate here. The name of the organization itself might differ. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 04:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

We must be very clear. The name of the place in English is Christchurch. If anyone questions that we can ignore them much as we would ignore someone arguing that the world is flat. We don't even have the usual argument to fall back on that the official name is "Ōtautahi Christchurch" so we should use it. The External link text describes what is in the link isn't there to repeat the link's title or the name of the link's author (unless that is relevant to describing what the text is about). To use 'ChristchurchNZ' would be unnecessary and not informative. The reason the Maori name is there is twofold: first, it's to attract the attention of the tourist (who will probably be in Christchurch when reading it, making confusion less likely; second, because they publishers (ultimately CCC) are bound in law to promote the Maori language and this is the way they have chosen to do it - it's simple and effective. But this is Wikipedia and we are not constrained by either of those reasons - we are in fact encouraged not to get involved in such business and political considerations. Please consider that all this artificial use of non-English names is being undone by this government. How far that will go and if it will again be changed later, only time will tell, but it illustrates well why WP editors should avoid getting involved in the ever changing tide of political sentiment. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

How exactly is "Christchurch and Canterbury" more informative than "ChristchurchNZ.com" if the latter is the name of the website/organisaion and the former is a name you've made up? "Christchurch and Canterbury" has the same issue with the Maori name, which is that it is just the name of the place, and that is uninformative. ―Panamitsu (talk) 06:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Stop needed

@user:Alexeyevitch This might be the best place to comment. I thought it better to add it hear than your talk page. I accept it is being done in good faith but most of you edits to Christchurch suburbs are doing more harm than good. You are often using low quality inappropriate sources; not using those sources properly; adding a lot of original research; and often writing nonsense English that makes no sense. Will you please stop doing it because you are making the articles worse. It is better to have an empty article than one filled with stuff that is wrong or inappropriate. I'm not talking about the odd sentence or two, but whole sections. The latest one is a 'history' section of Opawa that is full of stuff that has nothing to do with Opawa. I respectfully suggest you simply add your sources to a section called sources (and learn how to do it), preferably sources that can easily be accessed online by others and leave it at that. Others can then use them if needed. It takes time to add (properly) relevant detail to an article. You have to have a general grasp of what the topic is about to make sure what you add is relevant and has the correct weighting. That requires at least some reading of many sources if you don't already know anything about the topic. It also sometimes means not even starting to edit a page because you don't have that background knowledge. How many editors have the depth of knowledge to make a positive contribution to an article about quantum mechanics, for example? Very few I suggest, meaning any contribution they make is likely to do more harm than good. So, please, stop you widespread additions, which I think amount to well-intentioned disruptive edits. Add your sources to a specific list - that alone will take time. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it might be a good time for a some people to read the Five pillars of the encyclopedia. Many NZ editors would realize that chch topics are my area interest.

Wikipedia is editable by anyone, regardless if you are 9y/o or 90y/o or if you are an expert in a paticular area of interest or not. As long if your contributions are postive then it's good.

I agree what David (Cloventt) stated a few weeks ago: "the indigenous occupation and use of the area of Christchurch before and during European settlement is relevant to the city. A reader of this article would expect there to be some coverage of that subject." (This applies to the main Christchurch article and its subrubs/areas, incl Southshore and Opawa) I noted that this content is typically covered in offline sources, Ngāi Tahu atlas is a decent directory for these sources (although the website itself is sometimes prone to inaccuracies).

I think some of the sources will be available online although some certainly would not (e.g Local Lives: A History of Addington or The Estuary Where Our Rivers Meet the Sea Christchurch's Avon-Heathcote Estuary and Brooklands Lagoon) and see WP:OFFLINE, "Don't let the fact that a printed book or journal is not available online scare you away from using them as a source in Wikipedia". I have been more cautious about my editing (e.g checking for typos) and fact-checking before I click on the "publish changes" button, you also don't need to cite info further in the article if it has already been cited. Most local history books are more reliable then some NZ mainstream media (which has a left-leaning political bias).

Regards. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

One approach, that I and others might well adopt, is simply to wipe away a whole section you have added rather than spend ages trying to sort it out. Wikipedia allowing anyone to edit does not mean anyone can do whatever they want to. There is also an obligation to edit to a reasonably competent encyclopedic standard. If you can't do that then do not edit. See my 'quantum mechanics' analogy above. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Plz stop this behavior. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 22:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I just had a quick read of the history of Opawa section and I think it looks alright.

Roger, as discussed previously, you appear to be alone in your belief that the history of Māori occupation and use of the land in the area of Christchurch is somehow irrelevant to the history of Christchurch.

Please do not ask other editors to stop editing when they are doing so in good faith. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 03:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I have never said the history of Maori in the area pre-1850 was irrelevant. What I have said is there was no Maori settlement on the site of the then Christchurch (today's inner city). Settlement and occupation are not synonymous and there was not even occupation beyond caves near Sumner or the odd fishing or eating spots along the coast or rivers. There certainly was no settlement. Somewhere like Kaiapoi and the pa is different because that was closer to a settlement, but Kaiapoi is not Christchurch. Also, Brighton and Redcliffs should not be treated as being in Christchurch - they were a long way out for decades after 1850 so treating them as part of Christchurch is anachronistic. Despite the whole SI being treated as unoccupied in the declaration of sovereignty, there was in fact acknowledgement of Maori who were there, as evidenced by actively getting them to sign the treaty in 1840-41 and by the various land purchases pre-1850. That is about as close a connection I can find between Maori and the European settlement of Canterbury in 1850. IMO, mention of Maori in this article should mention that and nothing else - a couple of sentences in the first paragraph). It certainly should not ramble on about Kaiapoi, eels or a NI iwi invasion of the SI. That all belongs in a separate article. Any ignorant observer reading that history of Christchurch section would be led to believe there was a Maori settlement pre-1850 that was taken over and developed by Europeans post-1850. That is a complete fallacy. It might not suit the current political mood but it is nevertheless true. Please look at the article source used to 'confirm' Maori settlement of the Christchurch land. The word 'settlement' is used about 20 times and always in relation to Maori settlement f New Zealand in the 14thC. or settlement (or lack of it) of the SI. The word is there correctly used in a very broad general sense, not about a specific settlement anywhere and certainly not on the Christchurch site.

Being done in good faith does not excuse the addition of text that causes so much later 'correction' - which could be seen as disruptive. As you saw earlier, even that IP on the Southshore article mentioned it. I asked the editor to stop adding large chunks of text that still needed a lot of work, and to type off line first. That is a perfectly acceptable request. I was of course aware the additions had been made in good faith which did not make my comments any easier to write. And, I don't think consensus means we can ignore verifiable facts. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

You're wrong about that there was no settlement in the inner (central) city. (e.g Puāri and Ōtautahi) near the fire station and Victoria Square.

Cathedral Square and a part of Kilmore Street were burial sites. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 22:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you supply a source/link? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

ok, (see map of Christchurch city center in this PDF) there are also book sources available in the library. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 22:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

[16] I found this too which is not at all ideal. CCC library stuff is primary. Your source is primary, it is one person's legal submission/evidence. From what I can see without wasting much time reading in depth, these places near the fire station were either abandoned, intermittently used and often nowhere near Christchurch. More relevant they are deemed sites of cultural significance (again, please read the sources carefully). A site of cultural significance is not a settlement. As I said earlier, settlement means something, certainly in international law, and these places were not settlements. At best they were places occupied by a few Maori at various times. I suggest you try to remove from your thinking anything you have heard or read about the importance of involving Maori as 'partners' in NZ society, especially from the CCC, and look at proper independent secondary sources. and read them carefully. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)