Talk:Haast-Hollyford road

Merge proposal

I agree that some of the info in Haast-Hollyford Highway should be merged here but only stuff that related directly to the proposed road. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Most of the HHH article is the timeline - that could go into the "Road proposals" section (perhaps renamed to "Timeline of road proposals") and drastically reduced in size (there's a lot there which doesn't relate to the road link). The rest of the text is basically just a lede, which can be merged in with the rest of the text quite easily, I'd think. Grutness...wha? 21:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm amazed at quite what a heavy handed POV the other article's timeline has been written with. I've started trying to make it NPOV, but in some cases that nmeans removing whole paragraphs! Check the changes I had to make to the "2003" section... [1] Grutness...wha? 04:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Good work James. I have a strong POV on the road as well and I did see that stuff. It all looked quite daunting to sort out. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't easy to combine two articles, one from a pro-road editor and one from a greenie ;) Your work was thankfully much less POV, but there are still quite a few POV issues with the article to be tidied up. Grutness...wha? 05:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me know when you have finished with your edits. I will then take over. It is a tricky one and edits take time and I hate edit conflicts. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk moved from Talk:Haast-Hollyford Highway

The following text was moved from Talk:Haast-Hollyford Highway when the pages were merged

Administrators, please hold off deleting this page. We will redirect it once the content is merged with the article Haast-Hollyford road. Thanks. Talktome^(Intelati) 03:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Note - there's a lot needs to be excised from the article as it is being merged, for three reasons: (1) a lot of it doesn't actually have much relevance to the Haast-Hollyford road, but is more concerned with things like to Te Anau-Milford road (perhaps some of it could be moved to that article?); (2) the writing is very POV - I removed the bits which directly labelled Helen Clark as a hypocrite and Frana Cardno of "using her influence" to stop the road, but there's still some very un-NPOV sections; (3) quite a bit of the timeline seems to be directly culled from articles (i.e., there's quite a bit of copyvio). I've started trimming the timeline back (only 1971 to 2000 still to do), and it'll need more work from others as well. As far as merging the articles, see the comments at Talk:Haast-Hollyford road. Grutness...wha? 04:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

PS - pages in the process of mergers aren't deleted while that's happening anyway - and even if this one was accidentally, as an admin I could restore it until the merging was completed :) Grutness...wha? 04:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment removed from article page

This comment by User:Piopiotahi replaced all of the text of the article.

It is with heartfelt regret that I am forced to withdrawal my contribution from this site. I hope that the faceless persons whom have “slashed and burned” information on this site which was giving a balanced view have gained a lot of satisfaction from doing so. It is a pity that people with tinted glasses can deprive others from seeing relevant information on such an important subject. I thought we lived in a country of free speech. I had a lot of information about a subject that a lot of people want to learn more about. However these people have now deprived everybody of that. I had published only a small amount of what I had but to see the nucleolus of my story (1929) has been taken out and without that the rest is meaningless. The whole idea of a date-line has been destroyed. Even the reference to “World Heritage Drive” has been deleted, because “its not called that”. I can assure you that you will hear more use of this term as this is what the Westland District Council refer to it as being. This site is no longer the informative site that it was intended to be. The more I put on the more has been removed. I guess I have equal rights to slash and burn views that others have on other sites. I am not the sort of person who want’s an argument but I do love informed debate. I'm just annoyed about hypocrites and their double standards. This exercise has made me consider a dedicated web page to the cause. Best wishes to you all.

If Piopiotahi is reading this... I was the one who "slashed and burned" the article.

What I actually did was remove the conjecture, opinion, bias and - in two cases - libellous comments. What I left was the heart of your article, including all the information that was relevant, unbiased, true, and verifiable. This is a free country, in that in general you can speak your mind about whatever you want. However, you cannot assert as fact things which are opinion, speculation, misrepresentation, or falsehoods and expect them to remain in an article which deals with facts. Wikipedia is not a place for conjecture or opinion. It is an encyclopedia, and as such maintains every effort to be neutral and unbiased.

The 1929 section which was removed did not relate to the Haast-Hollyford road. It was information about the construction of the Milford Road, which is detailed in a different article. If you wish to add it there, it would have relevance to that aarticle. It had no relevance here. The idea of a dateline was removed and replaced by structured paragraphs, as is the standard way with most Wikipedia articles. It makes it easier to read the article and easier to see connections between different items which occurred in different years that way.

Wikipedia is not a place for promotion of neologisms. If the road eventually becomes widely known as the World Heritage Highway, World Heritage Drive, or some similar name, then the use of such terms can be readily used for the article. Even then, the way to use those names would be within the article, or as an alternative redirect title, or as the main title of the article. The use of the term inside parentheses is highly inappropriate in a Wikipedia article title. As it is, there is probably enough evidence for World Heritage Highway to be added as a redirect to this article (as I have done). "World Heritage Drive", however, seems to be more widely used for a highway in Western Australia (and is in use as a redirect to an article).

If it is true that "the more you added the more that was removed", then it is very likely that what was removed was not relevant to, or required for, the article. The vast majority of what you wrote is still here, and in fact remains the heart of this article. You do indeed have the same rights to "slash and burn", inasmuch as you may edit and even trim articles to remove irrelevant information, biased information, falsehoods, and misrepresentations as well.

As to hypocrisy and double-standards, I too have troubles with that. I would ask what your opinion, from that point of view, would be to someone donating information to a wiki-based project (on the implicit understanding that any such information can and will be edited by others), and them removing that information when it is edited. Or of someone who objects to their own writing being edited then seeming keen to suggest that they have the right to "slash and burn views that others have on other sites." I would suggest that you might consider reading WP:OWN, WP:POINT and WP:NPA as regards these points.

Your suggestion of a dedicated website to "the cause" shows exactly the problem. This is a neutral site. We do not support any "cause" other than the increase of free, factual, unbiased information. if you think that the article should be promoting some "cause", then you clearly have the wrong idea of what Wikipedia is and does. I would advise you to read WP:NPOV and WP:SOAPBOX. If you have a cause that you are trying to promote through this article, then WP:COI may also be worth reading. If this is the case, then yes, a dedicated website would make far more sense than trying to use Wikipedia.

Don't get me wrong - I think that a lot of what you wrote is worthwhile, and as such, I excised relatively little overall - the article size has dropped from 33k to around 25k - a drop of some 25%. The majority of your work is still there — quite a bit of the size reduction was simplifying and clarifying information. As I said, your information still forms very much the heart of the article; the history section, in particular, was thoroughly written and the relevant parts of it have been retained. Grutness...wha? 07:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Haast-Hollyford road. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100524013647/http://www.greens.org.nz/features/why-its-time-kill-loopy-road-idea to http://www.greens.org.nz/features/why-its-time-kill-loopy-road-idea

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)