Talk:Papakura District

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineePapakura District was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
October 2, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
WikiProject New Zealand (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Auckland (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Auckland, which aims to improve the coverage of Auckland, New Zealand, on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Talk Archive[edit]

/Archive 1

GA nomination[edit]

I am not taking official action on the nomination since I don't have time to thuroughly review the article, , but the number of references and in-line citations clearly needs to rise to be upto the de facto GA standard. Facts about history and demographics in particular which should be citable to government sources should be referenced. Otherwise it looks like an excellent article, but I only look through it breifly. Eluchil404 21:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

GA failed[edit]

1. Well written? O.K.
2. Factually accurate? Fail (citations missing)
3. Broad in coverage? Fail (expansion requested)
4. Neutral point of view? Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images? O. K.

Additional comments :

  • The Geography section is a bit jam packed with proper names, route names, city names and all that jazz. If you would add more prose to it it would be more digestable, if I may say. Maybe more caracteristics about importance of such and such would be good.
  • The line The city council is planning for Papakura's population to more than double within the next 50 years. is unnecessary unless changed to reflect the fact that there should be no time limitations in an article. Like By 2056, the council projects there will be twice as many people as there are now or something like that.
  • This Papakura is somewhat isolated from the urban pressures and social problems associated with more urban parts of South Auckland. needs to be inline cited.
  • Papakura boasts, should this be the verb used?
  • A section such as Facilities gives an advertisement tone to the article. Especially with Outdoor Recreation where it shows areas that are not even in the district.
  • This is unnecessary in the article : Commuters from Papakura to Auckland are affected by Auckland's acute traffic congestion problems.
  • No section on the council, why? The hierarchy of the council should be included in the article.
  • On [1], the area is 126 km2, 123.
  • Hunua Ranges sounds like a big attraction but is barely mentioned in the article.
  • More about demography can be found here[2].
  • The History is more of an etymology section with a bit of everyday life of the Papakura villagers. It should contain more information on the settlement of this district.
  • Images such as Image:Papakuralogo.PNG & Image:EdHillaryonNZfiver.jpg need to state their fair use rationale.

Please work on the comments and come back to the GA process once you have worked on the article. You can contact me on my talk page if you want more help, information or if you want to discuss the GA review. Good luck, Lincher 12:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful feedback. Much to consider ~~ Papeschr 21:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hunua Ranges are not actually in the Papakura District, in fact it is not even in the Auckland area, Hunua is officially a rural locality of the Franklin District, not the 'Papakura District'

Does anybody think that this article should go on the page?[edit]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.150.117.41 (talkcontribs)

I removed these sections from the article as unsourced and speculative. I'm not sure what the current status of the proposal is, and although Helen Clark met with the mayors initially, I don't know what her views on the plan are. To say that "many Aucklanders" support it is meaningless - you'd have to quote an opinion poll. This could go back into the article if it's properly referenced.- gadfium 22:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

excellent, thanks for your feedback.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.150.110.236 (talkcontribs)

The version now added to the article is even worse. I'd like to see the claims referenced, and until they are referenced, I think the material should be removed from the article.- gadfium 07:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No, because it has already been rejected completely [1], and I don't think it was under discussion for long enough for it to warran inclusion even as a rejected proposal (will anyone remember it in 3 years time?) hence I'm removing the section completely.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dramatic (talkcontribs)

Breaking News[edit]

I don't understand what this is saying. I assume that Newsteams is a typo for newstreams, but in that case just about everyone everywhere can be informed of breaking news and emergency messages. Does Papakura have some special mechanism in place to inform residents of an emergency. I believe most communities in New Zealand have civil defence sirens; not that most people would know what to do if they went off.- gadfium 01:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Problems with KOL user[edit]

a) Acting like a sockpuppet, with these IP addresses] :

User:202.150.110.254 :User:202.150.114.47 :User:202.150.122.62 :User:202.150.110.236
User:202.150.117.41 :User:202.150.112.128 :User:202.150.120.25 :User:202.150.124.104
User:202.150.111.232 :User:202.150.116.119 :User:202.150.116.112 :User:202.150.124.213
User:202.150.111.59 :User:202.150.114.67 :User:202.150.111.232 :User:BOi-sOLe

b) Edits not appropriate for an encyclopedia -- obsessed with administrative trivia and lists of suburbs
c) Repeatedly degrades the introductory sentence with "Informally just Kura" or similar. Totally superfluous
d) Repeatedly adds opinion that Red Hill is "most picturesque suburb".

Recommended remedies

a) Get a proper user name and sign in.
b) Read Invercargill or other wikipedia articles to get an idea of what a decent article is like: readable, interesting, unique, informative, succinct. Using paragraphs & short sentences. Stop reinserting junk. Respect other users.
c) I am dismayed that Papakura's graffiti problem now extends to cyberspace. Arrgh make it stop
d) Need to get out more. Try different adjectives, eg "Suburban Highlights: Keri Hill has pastoral lifestyle blocks overlooking Ardmore; Red Hill offered a strategic vantage point for the indigent Maori people, but is now a popular suburb; Pahurehure has a seaside setting on the eastern reaches of Manukau Harbour. Drury is the first genuine country town south of Auckland, and Takanini is Papakura's industrial zone". No need to list ALL the suburbs; that's very boring.

Also, please read the Good Article Criteria and revew comments above. This was once quite a good article, however your additions of insane political trivia make it indigestible. ~~ Papeschr 07:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

WHAT

Excuse Me? But what is it with you? Do you have some sort of problem?? GOSH why do you have to be so rude? I don't even thinik you should be allowed on here, I'm just trying to improve the article. I don't want to look at Invercargill's article, Papakura is different, just leave me alone!

GOSH

obsessed with administrative trivia and lists of suburbs, what the heck is that? it's not obsession, you have a really bitchy attitude! Could you just leave wikipedia, permanently!

Problem with Wikipedia worker - response
  • My user-name is PROPER, how dare you judge that.
  • and I actually good this article criteria from North Shore City, so if you're saying this is crap you're saying that about other people's work as well.
  • I am not reinserting JUNK, it's the truth!!!!!
  • Respect other users? I have respect for other users, but NOW that you've rudely offended me my respect for some users has dropped!
  • That is silly: Papakura's graffiti problem now extends to cyberspace it is facts not rubbish or graffiti, you are really really RUDE!!
  • These are not ALL the suburbs!! and other Auckland articles list all the suburbs? Why is it different for Papakura??


So, really, you have a major issue! Either with me or with my work. You can't have everything your way! There's only 1 thing in the middle of the universe and it's NOT YOU! It's the sun!! I think you should consider some anger management, or something because you offend people withyour attitude. Your attitude is snobby, and bitchy, like a 4 year old's so just GROW UP! You're making issues personal, and you need to be much more proffessional. So what if you have some sort of special relationship with Papakura, some of YOUR inserted JUNK is totally INCORRECT. Please leave Papakura's article alone. It was fine withOUT you Thanks.

Anonymous user, Papeschr was referring to the fact that you seem to make your edits without being signed in to Wikipedia (that is what he referred to with 'proper'). Also, your comments here were not given under a user name (honce signed in, you sign your comments on the talk pages with four times ~ ~ ~ ~ (minus the spaces).
You have been doing what some consider controversial edits (not in itself or automatically a problem). By not doing them under a wikipedia name, it is more acceptable to have them reverted. And more difficult to have a correct discussion about them with you. MadMaxDog 08:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

THANKS[edit]

Well thank you MadMaxDog! You have a much better understanding than papschr, and especially much better ATTITUDE

Does this mean you are going to start signing in?? Or signing your comments?? ~ Papeschr 00:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Nicky Watson[edit]

Hello, Just wondering, Why is Nick Watson associated with Papakura? Do you know? --HannahSamuels 04:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Just remove it if you doubt the connection. It doesn't have a source, and the user who added it has only made two edits.-gadfium 06:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Papakura DISTRICT[edit]

Could somebody please change the name of this article, from Papakura to Papakura District? This article refers to the actual district, not the suburb Papakura. I am planning to make an article: Papakura, about the suburb, not the district as a whole. Thanks. --HannahSamuels 08:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I support moving this article to Papakura District. That name is currently taken by a redirect which has more than edit in its history, so I believe this will require help from an admin. Unless someone objects in the next day or so (or beats me to it), I'll list it at Wikipedia:Requested moves. -- Avenue 11:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hunua Ranges??[edit]

A 30 minute drive southeast of the Papakura District is the Hunua Ranges (in Franklin District). This Auckland Regional attraction features a waterfall and forested walking tracks. Since Papakura has no major river, just a stream, much of Auckland's water (including Papakura District’s) is supplied from reservoirs in the Hunua Ranges. does this information need to be in this article? Officially, Hunua is in the Franklin District not Papakura?? Could I please get some feedback? Chhers. --HannahSamuels 08:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy for it to go. As you say, the Hunuas aren't in Papakura, even if they are nearby. Much the same argument would apply to visiting Mission Bay, Maraetai etc. -- Avenue 11:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Papakuralogo.PNG[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Papakuralogo.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:EdHillaryonNZfiver.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:EdHillaryonNZfiver.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.


Save_Us_229 01:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Two Papakura articles?![edit]

No thanks. If/when Papakura District is subsumed by a SuperCity, or renamed to something else, then we can rename this article and update the info accordingly. As it is, a separate Papakura article is duplication of effort. I vote for one Papakura article. Papakura is not a big place, it should just have 1 wiki page! Thanks ~ Ropata (talk) 06:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion[edit]

  • The article Papakura District contains a lot of content that belongs in this article.
  • Also, the administrative history "Papakura District" should be footnoted in the History section of this page.
  • Also, a separate article that contains duplicate content dilutes the usefulness of this page.
  • Also, it's confusing having two articles on the same subject - the distinction between "suburb" or "district" is relatively trivial

Vote to MERGE Ropata (talk) 03:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose a merge. I agree that there is a lot of overlap, and that can eventually be resolved, by for example, shortening down the district article to the local government history, and removing the demographic and cultural stuff over to Papakura - but "Papakura District" is a separate historical topic, that does not always overlap well with Papakura alone. If we merge, another Wiki-historian will later on have to re-create the article about the District... Ingolfson (talk) 10:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Responding to Ropota's earlier comment about the size of Papakura - size of place is not important on Wikipedia re: number of articles. We have articles about single buildings, after all. What Ropota seems concerned about is duplication of effort/confusion. I think that is best covered by, as I suggested above, cutting down the "Papakura District" article to the local government functions / history (creation, major achievements & governmental events, subsumation into Auckland Council under protest). That makes a tidy scope for a separate article. Ingolfson (talk) 10:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Support a merge, of the historical local government information into our list of former territorial authorities in New Zealand, and of the demographic, cultural, and other information about the area itself into Papakura. I would delete the information about the four former wards; it's unsourced and unimportant. Besides this, there is no information here specifically about Papakura District that does not apply equally to other Districts. If someone does arrive later with sourced information about events and achievements of Papakura District, the article could be recreated then. Yes, there is plenty to say about the reorganisations of local government in NZ, but this would be better handled in a couple of general articles than repeated in dozens of separate short articles on the various former local authorities involved. --Avenue (talk) 13:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)