Talk:Stokes Valley

New Zealand Mid‑importance

	New Zealand portal This 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.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

new Edits

please don't delete large portions of the page on stokes valley without providing reasons for doing so... I just entered large amount of detail and it was ruthlessly deleted...

why? its factual and referenced..??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveswikiedits (talk • contribs) 02:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No-one has deleted large portions of the page. All that has been done is to correct the grammatical and other errors which were added. if you consider that "rutless deletion,. then heaven help you when anyojne actually does remove any of what you write here! If you'll look at the page history you'll see that the only editing to your additions prior to you adding this note actually extended the page slightly. As it is, there are considerable features of your writing which need correcting to meet Wikipedian writing standards. Those are all that have been made. Grutness...wha? 07:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry perhaps there was a bug....but I did write a large amount and then came back and there was only a few lines. the only heading visible was the Geology section - the entire middle section was removed - I knew wikipedia can be ruthless , but I jumped the gun.. maybe the problem was with my computer --- who knows? lucky I had saved what I typed on my machine - so i just pasted it back...Thanks for fixing the typo's and layout etc... I'm still learning... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveswikiedits (talk • contribs) 10:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It takes a while :) No offence taken -or intended by my comments. You're adding a lot of good info, it just needs a little tidying here and there.Keep up the good work :) Grutness...wha? 10:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have written a lot of stuff here lately - and its good that you (grutness) are making it more wikified.. thats fine... I'm just concerned that some of the rewriting may not be accurate based on the references that have been removed and changed etc... also as I'm new to this i have put a lot of my references at the end of the paragraph that I wrote - as much of it has been collated from many sources and compiled just into a single paragraph as I thought best - eg the excessive references I made to the hope tragedy.. eg one news paper would have his surname, the other would include the name of the wife, another would make the reference to the horse etc.... likewise the references to other early historical events (ie Robert Stokes and his life and land grants etc) may have the references mixed up...Steveswikiedits (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just wondering - did you check the references before you removed them to make sure that all relevant info that has been stated is still referenced correctly?Steveswikiedits (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also one more thing... do I put the reference immediately after each sentence (ie whenever there is a full stop..)? for each fact I find? or even next to each word and name etc... I may have to relook at some of the references I have provided if that is the case....Steveswikiedits (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again - I didn't check the individual references, so I may have removed some important ones (they'll still be in the page history, so they'll be easy to add back. References to specific facts should go as close after the facts they're referencing as possible (usually at the end of a sentence unless it's a long or complex sentence, in which case they'd literally go immediately after the fact within the sentence). If a reference is placed at the end of a paragraph it usually means one of three things - that the last fact in the paragraph is he one being referenced, that that paragraoph asa whole comes from that source, or that several facts in the paragraph come from the source (sources are usually only listed once per paragraph maximum). If two references are placed together it's usually assumed they are referencing the same fact. I'd be a bit surprised if there isn't one reference from which at least the majority of that information can be gained, which would reduce the number of references needed considerably. Grutness...wha? 18:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's information on how citations are done at Wikipedia:Citing_sources. One possible soplution to the paragraphs about the accident would be the rarely used (but useful) "bundling" of citations (see Wikipedia:Citing_sources#.22Bundling.22_citations and Wikipedia:Citation_overkill). Grutness...wha? 18:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the detail removed in the ham(b)lin incident regarding the journey by horseback to wellington.. I think it was quite interesting...Steveswikiedits (talk) 01:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is really too trivial for an article of this nature. The fact that Hamblin died because she had to be taken to Hospital is relevant, since that relates to why the tragedy occurred and therefore why it is remembered in valley history. The fact that she went by horseback isn't relevant and can be inferred anyway - there would have been few other ways to get from Stokes Valley to Wellington in those days that would have been reasonable for an injored person on their way to hospital. Similarly, we don't need to know that Hart was only nine when he moved to Matarawa - it makes no difference to the history of Stokes Valley, so is not relevant to the article. If there were articles specifically on Hamblin or on Hart, then they would be relevant, but they're too trivial for an article on the valley as a whole. In any case, if a reader is interested enough to find out that level of detail, they're likely to hunt down one of the books mentioned in the references, rather than simply relying on a Wikipedia article.

You're adding a lot of good information to the article, but you need to keep in mind whether it is important information to the subject of the article. To make a good article, it should be balanced, and will need equally detailed information about recent history, demographics, geography, economy, and many other features of the valley. If you put in minutiae about the early history, then you're straitjacketing yourself to get to the same level on other features of the valley (and consider how overwhelmingly large such an article would be!) It's fine for a book on Stokes valley, but it's really too detailed for a general article on the place (I'm speaking from experience on this, by the way - I was the primary author of an article which became a featured article, on the Dunedin suburb of Caversham. I could have added extremely small details about the life of early stettlers like the Valpys and Sideys, but it would have overweighted the article too much towards the suburb's early history). Consider it simply as friendly advice on the sort of things that are worth detailing in an article of this nature :) Grutness...wha? 06:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its good that you keep on eye on what I write. I understand. your article looks good - I did have in mind something like what you have done..the page looks good - so I might steal some of the ideas. Imatation is the sincerest form of flattery they say...it looks like it has a good balance, but It will take me a while. I was going to go out and take some photos of prominant spots as well. I have some really old ones and it would be good to show the changes from the same view point over time. I'm pretty much finished with 19th century history, so was going to do 1900 to 1950's next... Steveswikiedits (talk) 12:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative names

I've trimmed the alternative names section down, since it's threatening to overweight the article a bit. Starvation Valley is no longer a nickname, and is already explained in the history section, so it isn't needed there. Both Snakes Valley and Stokes Vegas seem to be more colloquial nicknames than true alternative names, so they probably don't need much comment either (and as to Stokes Vegas, BTW, it seems to be common on internet discussion groups but nowhere else, if the number of google hits is anything to go by). The only true serious alternative name seems to be Koraunui. Grutness...wha? 07:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]