Talk:Opawa

Hansen Park

@user:Alexeyevitch This follows discussion on the Christchurch talk page yesterday... This should give you an idea of a notable feature of Hanson Park, the Opawa Loop and flooding problems of the Heathcote. It is not a proper secondary source but it is good enough for now. I suggest look at similar sources to get a better overview of the history of Opawa and the issues that make it what it is today. There is more to Opawa than a few listed buildings. There are also notable buildings that are not listed. Being listed is not an exclusive mark of notability. This source will also be useful for other parts of the Heathcote such as in the Beckenham Loop that still has major flooding issues. It will also be useful for a special section in the article about the river, if one doesn't exist, and for an article on Christchurch land fill sites. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello, if there are more notable buildings plz provide suggestions about the listed houses. Need a new image in the infobox, ideally a high-res image of the main retail area (other articles tend to do this). This is a good history book about the suburb but it is in-library use only. Also this article needs to be engaing to (especially to international readers), it doesn't matter how boring and ordinary Opawa may appear on the surface, the WP article should be interesting/engaging to readers. Thx. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

If the link doesn't work go to Wikilibrary or elsewhere and search Oldfield, Isobel..The Hansen Park legacy. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Ōpāwaho / Heathcote River

@user:Alexeyevitch This is not about your fallback position of "the official name is not its common name" Maybe this rule needs to be ammended. This sentence "The Māori name for the area is "Ōpāwaho", it is also the name of the Ōpāwaho / Heathcote River" does not make sense unless the river is named as the linked article

I will copy a bit of txt that Roger said a few days ago: "Please note the link to WP rules provided. The name to use is the commonly used and understood name by English speakers, as in the link provided. The official name of a place is not the name to use. If they are the same that is coincidental. I encourage you to create a user name and profile, it will help establish credibility." It is also discouraged to add Māori (or any other non-English) translations to articles which don't really need them... it fluffs up the article and might make it difficult to understand to non-NZ readers (e.g someone from HK). Aoraki / Mount Cook is obviously an excpetion to this. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 06:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I (usually) enjoy being quoted. The IP/Outis has illustrated just one of the problems caused by the decision of some NZ editors to try to accomodate the recent politically based name changes of NZGB - it doesn't work (and has caused countless hours of wasted time discussing the issue.) The simplest approach is to use the established names and mention the NZGB official name in the first sentence. The new official name should only be used if it has become established, which will rarely be the case. Contemporary official sources should not be used because they are not independent, which in practice means we will have to decide on a case by case basis for the very few names that ever do become borderline. Regarding the problems that arise from trying to placate the PC people, the confusion that arises from calling Opawa and the Heathcote River anything other than Opawa and the Heathcote is an obvious case in point. It won't be too long before use of these new names will, in some way, be restricted in law to apply common sense (much like the use of the new incomprehensible names of Crown Entities is being restricted). But, to stay on topic, yes, the name to use here and everywhere in Wikipedia is the commonly used and understood name, unless a specific situation requires otherwise. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Sentences

How is this supported? "The railways had local significance, they stimulated settlement beyond the confines of the "original suburbs".

How do you get from the first sentence to the second? "In Opawa, residents had frequent trains to Christchurch passing daily through the district. When compared with the other modes of transportation, train travel was not convenient or simple." There are multiple trains daily but not convenient or simple? Where's the explainer?

This sentence seems a bit backwards: "The Main South Line used to provide one of Christchurch's largest industries the Addington Railway Workshops, in Addington" The Line is not the employer. New Zealand Railways was.

Long, could do with a break: "The primary road supporting the transportion in the area is State Highway 76 (Brougham Street) which traverses from the north through the suburb, also through Sydenham and Brougham Street, going thoroughfare the suburbs of Hillsborough and Opawa, then Port Hills Road connecting with Tunnel Road to pass through the Lyttelton road tunnel at Heathcote Valley."

Industrialism is the economic system: not the correct use in this sentence "who wished to leave Woolston's industrialism". Probably better to write "people who wished to leave the industrial areas of Woolston" or something else.

Probably better to write "According to [authors name] Opawa was Christchurch's first high society suburb". Would be better to reference the book, rather than use a very light feature written for the property pages in a local newspaper. Also why is the book not used/referenced (Opawa - the Outpost on the Banks of the Heathcote/Noel Gillespie); it's a more recent publication than the others referenced.

Goldenbaybutcher (talk) 05:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

1. Because the book is in-library use only.

2. Implementing these suggestions yourself is good.

3. This article is written for all, not just New Zealanders. A reader would expect this content.

4. The source said business men but it is better written in gender-neutral terms.

5. How did you get access to the "High society in Opawa" reference? Alexeyevitch^(talk) 06:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

1. Because the book is in-library use only.

There are borrowing copies.

2. Implementing these suggestions yourself is good.

When I do any of these you revert them. Also, write better.

3. This article is written for all not just New Zealanders. A reader would expect this content.

What does this refer to?

5. How did you get access to the "High society in Opawa" reference?

Why did you link to an article if you didn't read it?

Also, where is 4. Goldenbaybutcher (talk) 06:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

4 is there now. And I don't know what you are referring to. However, it is most likely that the people in business would have been men. Anyway I was talking about the desire to label everything with a "class", someone in business is not necessarily middle class. That's an assumption. You are better to use neutral language. Workers, factory workers not working class. Business owners, professionals, white collar workers, not middle class. Goldenbaybutcher (talk) 06:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

At present time... there are not. I'm a local here and I asked the librarian and they said the book was in-library use (I didn't have my laptop with me at the time so it was pointless)

Also, I agree back in the day the people in the business were men. As I stated earlier: it is more gender-neutral to simply say "business people".

I stated that this is written for everyone. It is difficult for readers to read NZ articles when they are entirely written from a NZ prespective.

I'm also curious how you got access to the "High society in Opawa" reference? Alexeyevitch^(talk) 06:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

High society: in the article you cited. Unsure where you are but here in Christchurch our libraries have borrowing copies of the book, and library pc's to look up that information. Goldenbaybutcher (talk) 07:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken here. I cited a press article about the book via ProQuest. Please CITE what page you got this from in the book and I will be able to confirm whether this is true or not once I aquire it.

I'm literally a local here... I'm skeptical if you are from here or not but it seems unlikely. Your username mentions Golden Bay. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 07:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Did you read that article? You should read articles if you are citing them. That's a direct line from the article which is talking to the author of the book. Why are you citing references when you haven't read the content?

I'm not sure that you are a local as you don't seem to have access to Christchurch libraries. Goldenbaybutcher (talk) 08:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm too skeptical about this. If your main goal is to irritate and regularly follow me around then I simply don't want to be affiliated with you. I suggest trialing to edit other articles and see if you enjoy them rather than just sticking to this topic. If you have any other accounts you must disclose them. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I have edited the source on this as I think you are attempting to hide your sense of ownership of this article. Rather than editing the article or talking about the issues with it you have made comments taking the talk page off topic. I have edited and explained, you have reverted; I made suggestions on the talk page, you have disputed. Wikipedia allows multiple people to edit - Wikipedia:Ownership of content

Note also that you have made unnecessary comments on my talk page, not on topic, but simply because it seems you want to scare people away from articles you are editing. Goldenbaybutcher (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

One option is to let this run its course and then re-establish an earlier version. Alexeyevitch, why not find another topic with other articles to edit, something about movies or fashion, for example. You have made around 800 edits on this one page alone since October last year with very few actually adding anything constructive. I'm trying to be helpful and repeat what I have said before - find another editor to sit with you and guide you through a contribution, showing you how and how not to edit pages, and tell you why. I have said before that editing a sentence ten times until you find your prefered wording should not be done. When I raised my concerns earlier I was shouted down by others, something that might well happen again, unfortunately. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Replying to R8R here. I said earlier: who will be the one doing this? If no one is interested than this plan won't work. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 03:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I know some American editors... but they would not be able to help since all of them have interests elsewhere on Wikipedia. R8R who else could "help" me? Alexeyevitch^(talk) 03:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Sock puppting is a far worse thing... deleting your userpage when you haven't logged in for a while isn't normal thing for a new user to do. If you have other accounts than I highly suggest disclosing them. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 03:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I really do not understand the level of animosity on display here towards @Alexeyevitch. As far as I can tell from a quick review of their recent changes, this article has been substantially improved by them. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 04:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no animosity from me at all. I'm just commenting on what I see. Just look above, there is a list of sentences that have to be re-arranged or alterted, as stated by another editor, not me. All, yes all, of the article will have to be checked for similar problems. I cannot understand why you think it is acceptable to have one editor spend eight months adding 800 edits to an article that can only ever be a fairly small article (a 160 year old suburb in a 180 year old city). I did not mean removing everything that's been added - I meant going back to an earlier version and then adding to it what is of value in the current version. That would be quicker than working through what is there now and altering it. Please don't forget this applies to many articles, not just Opawa. Alexeyevitch, I have no personal grievance towards you, I'm just making what I think is a helpful suggestion - move to another subject and take advantage of what you have learned from all your work on Christchurch suburbs. I've made a couple of suggestions online which you are ignoring, such as write a draft offline first before posting online, and then leave it alone. And remember, I know nothing about you except you are American, which really doesn't make any difference to anything.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger 8 Roger (talk • contribs) 04:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I suggest rewording it if there is a problem with it. I am not sure who will be the one reviewing the drafts... I deny or accept who will be the one revewing it (since this is completely a sugestion). There are numerous reasons why Opawa is notable and I don't agree with removing content about notable landmarks or almost anything (if it's good in an encyclopedia). Alexeyevitch^(talk) 04:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Roger 8 Roger if you have suggestions plz list them elsewhere (not in this discussion) I will apply them in to the article. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 05:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

If you have issues with the prose, edit the prose to fix the issues. This is the nature of a collaborative encyclopaedia. Posting a list of complaints to the talk page does not seem productive to me.

This article has been substantially expanded from a Start-class (borderline stub really) to at least a B-class in the space of under a month. As far as I can see, they are the only one responsible for this dramatic improvement. Quibbling over their choice of sentence structure does nothing productive, especially when it is something any of us can fix. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 05:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll prioritize using secondary sources rather than entirely using CCC sources. That is good. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 05:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you are responding to @Cloventt

If you read what I wrote you will see that I posted the sentence corrections on the talk page because Alexeyevitch was consistently either reverting or editing any changes despite explanations (and not just edits I was making, other editors as well). I also suggested using a more modern book (2007 as opposed to Morrison's 1940s history), and changed a quote from an article. If you look at the replies from Alexeyevitch you can see they attacked the suggestions rather than looking at it as an opportunity to improve the article and the writing.

The other thing here is Alexeyevitch's hostility and attacks: e.g. comments such as "following me around", "disclose accounts","sock puppet". Quite a few examples on this page. This seems designed to shut down other editors. And this follows their comment on my talk page on 20 June:

"while they're edits so far have not been disruptive (actually pretty good) I found the editing patern a bit "odd" and I am a little bit skeptical about this. I am hoping this user does not have any previous accounts than they should disclose it"

and comments like this :"Do you have any other accounts? If so, you must disclose them." when reverting edits I have made (4 July). And unwarranted comments on my choice to clear my user page.

I find this behaviour odd and hostile. I will continue to edit this and other articles I am interested in.

Alexeyevitch may have edited this page over time but they do not own it Wikipedia:Ownership of content and I can see from interactions on other pages that this is an issue they struggle with. Improving articles means accepting edits particularly when an editor seems to struggle with sentence construction, and they are not reading articles they have cited in the body of the article. How does this behaviour make this a reliable source? Goldenbaybutcher (talk) 06:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Could you also potentially use the 2007 book or nah? You claim to be local here... surely you could simply go to a local library and have a look at it. Improving the article is good. And I suggest reading it for yourself. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 06:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Kind of missed the point with this comment @Alexeyevitch but displayed a good example of the general hostility you have towards other editors. Goldenbaybutcher (talk) 06:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully there is still room to collaborate and work together in good faith.

@Alexeyevitch would you be willing to briefly step back from this page and allow this user to copyedit the article for us? The article would benefit from their help on the way to reaching GA quality in my opinion. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 07:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)