Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board
This page is a notice board for things that are particularly relevant to New Zealand Wikipedians.

You are encouraged to add your name to the list of New Zealand Wikipedians.

Click here to start a new discussion
New Zealand time and date: 21:15 21 January 2020 NZST (refresh)
Universal time and date: 09:15 21 January 2020 UTC (refresh)
Did you knowArticles for deletionProposed deletionsCategories for discussionFeatured article candidatesA-Class reviewGood article nomineesPeer reviewsRequested movesArticles to be mergedArticles to be splitArticles for creation
Notice: Since November 2014 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand has redirected to this page. Archives for the page can be found below.
Wikimania 2020
Bangkok, Thailand – 05-08-2020
197days to go
Local Time




Like many languages, Te Reo Māori distinguishes between long and short vowels, a distinction unknown in English but familiar in Finnish for example. In Finnish long vowels are represented by double letters, for example "minute" is "minuutti". Te Reo is occasionally written this way too, e.g. "Maaori", but macrons are now standard. Should we encourage the use of macrons on wikipedia? I recently created a redirect for Ngongotahā but in my opinion this should be the primary name for the article. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:01, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm vastly in favour of using macrons where appropriate, they cost little and aid pronunciation. But you must remember that this is English Wikipedia, we reflect usage as it is in English language sources, I would only consider using macrons for words where that word is routinely found used with macrons in normal everyday English sources - this is becoming increasingly so as far as I can tell in newspapers, documents, books and signs so I have no doubt that macrons will be a thing of the future for Māori inspired words in an English context on English Wikipedia. Andrewgprout (talk) 08:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Well I'm going to be WP:BOLD and move Ngongotaha to the macroned version. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:24, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, I was equally WP:BOLD, and moved it back. We went through all of this with "Paekakariki". Unless/until there's clear evidence that "Ngongotaha" is usually spelled differently in everyday English text, then that's the way it should stay. Ross Finlayson (talk) 08:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
What many people don't seem to appreciate is that there isn't just 'one' Wikipedia. Instead, there are several, one for (in principle) each of the world's languages. "" is the English-language Wikipedia; "" is the Finnish-language Wikipedia; and "" is the Te Reo Wikipedia. Another thing to keep in mind is that "" is an international encyclopedia (because English is an international language). Conventions that might be common in English text written in New Zealand (such as the frequent use of untranslated Te Reo phrases) are often less appropriate in an international encyclopedia like this. Ross Finlayson (talk) 08:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
So we should just keep on disrespecting the language (like "Kaiwarra") instead of spelling it correctly... I get it. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
It looks like you need to read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS Ross Finlayson (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Nope, correct spelling is just correct spelling. Te reo is a living language. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
But we're not writing Te Reo here; we're writing English. Why is this so hard for you to understand? (I realize that school has ended for you now, and that you now have lots of free time - but many of us don't, so please stop wasting our time by repeating the same point over and over.) Ross Finlayson (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
MaxBrowne2, which language are we disrespecting? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Why make it personal? It used to be standard to say "Maoris" instead of "Māori". We've moved on. Spell Māori words correctly. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
The New Zealand Gazetteer lists the town and surrounding features as "Ngongotaha" without the macron - no sign of any spelling with the macron. This is a more clear-cut case, unlike the Paekakariki case in which the town is spelled "Paekakariki" but the nearby hill is spelled "Paekākāriki". Lcmortensen (mailbox) 05:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

There are now pages of debate on the topic of macrons relating New Zealand place names that are of Māori origin, most of which appear to have reached inconclusive results. The question has become, to my mind, is there an international English version of Māori - be it place names or anything else for that matter? If we resolve that then we resolve the issue. NealeFamily (talk) 02:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

English Wikipedia pages, despite what User:Rsfinlayson says, are not written in "international" English. They're written in American English, British English, or (in articles with strong national ties to NZ), New Zealand English, and they follow the usage of that country – see MOS:TIES. If the usage of macrons in NZ English is changing in media, government, law, and education – as it quite clearly is, and I'm happy to supply extensive evidence to that end – then Wikipedia will need to follow suit. There are pages of debate because nobody has yet formulated a clear proposal in the correct forum for a change to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand); I'm as guilty as anyone. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 03:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
As you well know (because I'm sure you carefully read what I wrote), I didn't say that "English Wikipedia pages are written in international English". I noted that "" is an international encyclopedia (i.e., with an international readership), and that pages should continue to be written with that in mind. (That's an important distinction.) Ross Finlayson (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
You're quite right, I was responding more to User:NealeFamily, my apologies. But we're not talking about the "frequent use of untranslated Te Reo phrases", we're talking about the exact same words that are already in the article, just with macrons. That's surely not going to be a problem for an international audience, is it? Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 03:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Maybe not. Just remember, though, that many readers (of "") will not be native speakers/readers of English, and will often come from countries where even the concept of "alphabet" is new to them. (That's a reason to be wary of gratuitous changes to the English alphabet in Wikipedia articles.) Ross Finlayson (talk) 04:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll just point out that in New Zealand, newspapers (which are followers rather than leaders of usage) have in recent years used macrons in loan-words from te reo Māori (particularly proper names). Per MOS:TIES that would make macrons correct usage in most cases. Just be aware that some people don't know how to type with macrons (it's really easy on Windows 7 with just a tweaked computer setting) so be prepared to do a bit of fixing and don't be too worried if some people just can't be bothered finding out. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Use in local English language reliable sources is the key, and that seems to support the use of macrons. However, the credibility of these reliable sources is compromised because they are following legislation that makes them promote the use of te reo,[1]. I think it is questionable whether we should treat these numerous sources as reliable, even though many are local govt and crown publications. Remove these sources from consideration and it becomes far less clear that local NZ English does in fact use macrons. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
OK, here's a list taken from the top 10 NZ media outlets and top 10 magazines by circulation (as of July 2018) that a) use macrons, and b) aren't even remotely subject to the 2016 Māori Language Bill: Both Stuff and the NZ Herald chain, so almost every newspaper in NZ. AA Directions (NZ's biggest-circulation magazine). The Listener. NZ Women's Weekly. North and South. NZ Geographic. The Spinoff. Newsroom. Newshub. Oh and the NZ Law Society style guide for good measure. So even if you argue that the entire NZ government and the whole education system from kindergarten to university are forced to use macrons[citation needed] and so are not "reliable sources", you're still left with numerous media outlets with circulations ranging up to 2 million. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 10:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I know that most of the media is not subject to pro-macron legislation; that was implied in my post if not explicitly stated. The media has other considerations and self imposed guidelines to follow, not always in line with commonly used NZ English. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Wait, you're saying that mainstream newspapers, magazines, TVNZ, universities and presumably all the journal articles published by academics working there, the rest of the education system, government departments including I guess all the CRIs, and Radio New Zealand are not reliable published sources? Explicitly contradicting what's stated in WP:COMMONNAME? So what are the reliable published sources you would use to determine what's "commonly used NZ English?" —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
If you don't like them, don't use them. Just don't whinge when people fix your spelling. I normally don't whinge when people fix mine. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the smile GFB. I do like seeing people trying to put words in my mouth: it's often seen as an approach of last resort. In this macron debate there is a good case for not using sources that have to comply with legislation because the way they write words follows the legislation, not the commonly used language. That restriction does not apply to all the other sources you mention, and I never said it did. Thanks also to Daveosaurus for yet another constructive contribution. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I think New Zealand English has reached the point where the use of macrons is usual in formal writing, and Wikipedia should follow this for Māori words in articles using NZ spelling. For articles written in different varieties of English, I do not expect macrons to be used, but don't see a problem if they are used. If we do get a consensus to use macrons in NZ English articles, then removal of macrons in these articles should be treated as an ENGVAR violation (ie, we try to educate users rather than punish them).
For articles written in other varieties of English, a possible exception is the word Māori, which I feel (but can't provide evidence for) should always be spelled with the macron as a mark of respect. I have just reverted a macron removal at Moana, South Australia - an article where Australian English is appropriate. I am not going to edit war over this, should someone remove it again.-gadfium 18:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
This debate should not be about the correct spelling in NZ English but because it usually is, it is missing the point. In English text, the word "Māori" is a foreign word; the word "Maori" is an English word. Foreign words used in English are exact replicas (unlike a loan word that can be slightly adapted) and are fine when there is no English equivalent of the intended meaning, but in this case there is a perfectly good English word, namely "Maori", so use of the foreign word "Māori" is not needed. Further evidence that these Maori words are being used as foreign words is that we are all supposed to use the 'correct' ie foreign language, pronunciation as well. So, I think we should be debating whether or not in common use, English speaking New Zealanders when using Maori words, are using foreign words or words with a foreign origin that have long since been assimilated into the English language. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
"Māori" is a foreign word; the word "Maori" is an English word." Really? I think this misunderstanding might be the crux of the issue. English adopts all sort of things. If NZ English is adopting/has adopted the macron in everyday usage, then Māori is an English word. Andrewgprout (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I concur with Gadfium but would be open to a discussion about the use of a macron for the word "Māori" in varieties of English other than NZ English. Schwede66 03:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

In a Google news search for "Maori" I can't find any current news sources using that spelling. Even a Guardian article uses "Māori".[1] If all the news media are using macrons, how much longer can Wikipedia remain outdated? Johnragla (talk) 06:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the spelling "Māori" seems to be well-established now, so it'd be hard to argue against its use in Wikipedia. OTOH, The New York Times (a very prominent and respected newspaper) recently disagreed; it'd be interesting to hear their reasons:[2]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsfinlayson (talkcontribs) 8 December 2018 (UTC)
The NYT doesn't usually use diacritics for non-Romance languages. From their stylebook:

Accent marks are used for French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and German words and names. For simplicity, use the marks uniformly with uppercase and lowercase letters, despite conventions that treat certain uppercase accents as optional. Do not use accents in words or names from other languages (Slavic and Scandinavian ones, for example), which are less familiar to most American writers, editors and readers; such marks would be prone to error.[3]

That quote comes from an interview, which continues: "Mr. Corbett expanded on this in our conversation. “We feel that it’s not practical to use these marks in less familiar languages,” he said. “It’s likely to be confusing to most readers and would lead to many more errors and misspellings.” Not as bad as the AP, who think diacritics will confuse computers. I completely disagree, and think that both computers and people can (be taught to) understand characters with diacritics just fine.—Hugh (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
English Wikipedia tends to retain the accents for common nouns of foreign origin, e.g. café (French) and smörgåsbord (Swedish). Māori therefore should be no different.Lcmortensen (mailbox) 10:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

There is a difference between a foreign word (an exact copy and used by, but not assimilated into, the host language, and a loan word (foreign origin but assimilated into the host language, with some adaptation if needed, to make it assimilated). Māori is clearly a foreign word because English does not use macrons; Maori is either a mis-spelt foreign word or an assimilated loan word. I think the history of the word in NZ makes it much more likely that Maori is an assimilated loanword, ie it is an English word. That means the current rush to use macrons is an attempt to change the word back to being a foreign word, which it was in the very early days of NZ before it became assimilated into the English language as a loan word. To call the use of macrons NZ English is a misinterpretation of the wp policy, which relates to spelling, style, and vocabulary (center/centre, tramp/hike etc). Whether someone uses a word of foreign origin as a loan word or a foreign word has nothing to do with any regional variations. A person in Texas or Ireland could just as easily use Māori as a person from Auckland, and the use of café/cafe is similarly not based on any regional variation of English but rather whether the person is using a foreign word or a loan word. Finally, I think it is debateable whether the use of macrons, or any diacritic, actually changes the spelling: they are merely pronunciation aids. That is the position of GBNZ and most grammar experts. If true, then isn't the use of macrons entirely discretionary on a case by case basis, making the current smothering of NZ English language articles with macrons, unnecessary overkill. There is a stronger case for always writing the coffee place as café than as Māori to describe the racial group (because confusion on pronunciation is greater -- kaff/cafe) Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I regard the use of macrons as a spelling issue, as there are two ways of writing long vowels in Māori - either with a doubled vowel or a macron. The use of doubled vowels - e.g. Maaori - is now rare, although I noticed that the newly redeveloped site at Rangiriri paa uses a doubled vowel.-gadfium 17:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Double vowels are the preference of the local iwi at Rangiriri. Macrons are the preference elsewhere. Wikipedia should catch up with general use, which reflects these preferences in English language publications. Otherwise we should propose to rename Ye Olde Wikipædia. Johnragla (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I would also like to point out that long vowels in the first syllable of Māori affects the stress patterns for the word. Primary stress is always on the first syllable; secondary stress is on the third syllable if the first syllable has a single short vowel, otherwise it's on the second syllable. For example "wahine" is /ˈwahiˌnɛ/ and "wāhine" is /ˈwɑːˌhinɛ/.Lcmortensen (mailbox) 22:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Long vowel, short vowel, and so on, is relevant if you are using a Maori word either by speaking/writing the language or by using a word in English as a foreign word. The moment that word begins to assimilate it starts becoming an English language word that will be subject to all the factors that determine English pronunciation. If we use that reasoning of "We should use whatever is the correct Maori stress, tone, spelling" then we should do the same for all the other words of foreign origin that have entered English. We would then be told off for saying "P'aris" instead of "Par'ee'. Changing tack, I thought the NY Times article was useful as it gives an outsider's opinion of how this recent pro-Mauri trend fits into the bigger picture which, in summary, is that it is part of a public mood swing fueled by legislation and govt led positive discrimination. I am not saying that is bad, I am just trying to put this all in context. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

"English does not use macrons"? [citation needed]. New Zealand English does use macrons for loan-words from te reo Māori: [4]. Daveosaurus (talk) 03:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

This[2] citation has been used elsewhere as evidence that NZ English uses macrons. It does no such thing! All it does is state that NZE uses Maori words as foreign words rather than as assimilated English words, and that the correct spelling of those foreign words is often with a macron. I agree with that assertion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Does English use macrons? Is "Māori" a foreign word? I asked an actual linguist, Prof Jeanette King at the University of Canterbury, an expert in the use of Māori in English. This is what she said:

"The convention is that if we use a “foreign” word in English we usually mark it by italicising it. For example, if I were to say, when I was in the Netherlands it took me a while to realise in cafes that the word slagroom means whipped cream. Here I’m using a word which we don’t know in English. So we italicise it. But words that come into English from other languages (loanwords or borrowings), yes, we do tend to adopt them without diacritics. So, for example, we’d write about a coup d’etat rather than a coup d’état. It’s not just the spelling though that conforms to English conventions. Grammatical aspects often also conform to English. For example, we talk about buying a panini for lunch, when in Italian you’d say panino for one because panini is plural.

However, the conventions about using Māori words in New Zealand English are evolving to bring in grammatical aspects of Māori words, and now, spelling with macrons. A long time ago the convention was to talk about Maoris and pas and maraes, etc. But nowadays I don’t think anyone does this anymore. Because ‘s’ is not used as a plural in Māori the convention is to talk about Māori, pā and marae when using Māori words in English. Context usually lets us know whether we are talking about singular or plural. Surely no-one queries this? The only exception to this rule is the word Kiwis when we are referring to New Zealanders.

Now we are also moving to use macrons with Māori words in English. So, over time, the conventions surrounding using Māori loanwords in New Zealand English is changing to take recognition of Māori grammar and spelling."

So Roger 8 Roger is incorrect in saying that "Māori" is a foreign word; it's a loanword in NZ English, and the conventions of diacritical usage are changing. It's irrelevant how we pronounce "Paris" or "panini": nobody ever said all loanwords in English had to consistently follow one convention of diacritic use. Wikipedia certain doesn't think so: see WP:DGUIDE. It doesn't even matter if it's some massive PC conspiracy to indoctrinate us all into using Te Reo, as some commenters seem to be hinting. Māori-loanword usage in NZ English is changing – objective fact – and Wikipedia has to reflect that. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I totally agree with Giantflightlessbirds. Māori loanword usage has and is changing to include macron's in virtually every mainstream media publication and Government publication in New Zealand. The New Zealand Geographic Board which presides over the official place names is macronising the spelling of Maori place names. As has been pointed out by various people, above, these all meet reliable sources guidelines and that is enough to end this argument. NealeFamily (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Making a decision based on common usage in reliable sources seems to be the most objective and Wikipedia-friendly way to decide. The other method of determining when a word shifts from an obvious loanword to an English one seem interesting, but difficult to clearly define. However, if these spellings are being used to increase the use of Māori words in the media, then they are not being used as English words. Or at least usage in this way should not count towards the tally (yet). New Zealand has three official languages mixing them up and calling what is left "New Zealand English" is occurring, but I am not certain that is what these (many) writers, journalists and politicians are trying to achieve. Could someone from the "macrons not NZE" camp put forward a working idea of how Wikipedia could tell when NZE has adopted a new word/spelling as its own. Waiting for dictionaries seems sensible, but I strongly believe we should and do have our own methods. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 03:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)).    

The term loanword is often used loosely to describe any word originating from another language, no matter how great or how little its absorption into the host language. Unlike other loosely defined words on WP that lead to pointless circular debates, loanword is more precisely defined in linguistic debates, including when a distinction is needed between a loanword and a foreign word. Here are some examples: [3], [4] (p294--A detailed linguistic thesis that of necessity makes a distinction between a foreign word and a loanword), and ' Loanword ' (the wiki article that gives good sources under 'linguistic classification'). Your UC quote, GFB, does not make any distinction or even mention the term 'foreign word' because it is using loanword in a more general sense. Besides that potential confusion, I cannot see how it contradicts anything I have said. Dushan Jugum neatly summarises what I think is not quite right about the recent use of macrons on WP for anything relating to NZ. All these reliable sources are indeed using macrons and that does, at first sight, seem to back the position of the pro-macronites. But, do they, or do they merely confirm that media and govt outlets choose to use macrons? We are assuming that the reason they use macrons is that is the way NZE is written. I have read one newspaper saying it was using macrons because 'Mauri is an official language', which is better than 'because we should respect the Mauri culture'. There is a disjoint in reasoning there. I too would welcome some suggestions on how we can deal with macrons on WP. 09:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)Roger 8 Roger (talk)

For names of people, it is now (after contentious arguments that spread over several years) common on Wikipedia to see diacritic marks that are not commonly used in English; for example, see Ngô Bảo Châu (where also the name order matches what is normal in Vietnamese, not in English) and Paul Erdős (where, by contrast, the first name and name order are anglicized). I am not a NZer and not sensitive to issues surrounding the Māori language. Nevertheless, I notice that many of the arguments for leaving off diacritics above seem very similar to arguments that were (eventually) widely rejected in the context of names of people from a variety of backgrounds (e.g., that a Hungarian name should lose its diacritic when it is written in English, because English does not have diacritic marks). Possibly it will be helpful to consider this broader context. --JBL (talk) 03:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Joel B. Lewis: I'll go along with the idea of leaving them off, for the reason you gave for the Hungarian names. If anyone wants to see a ridiculous implementation of macrons, look at Hōne Heke. Here, the pronunciation is indicated as Hone (as in bone) and Heke (as in Heek). Ridiculous. The long "o" misleads as to the pronunciation of the word's "e", and unbelievably there are no marks at all for the "e"s in Heke. As everyone in NZ knows (or should know), the proper pronunciation is Hon- (as in Honda) eh (as in egg), and Heh-keh (both as in egg). This should have been done properly, or not at all. If ever there was a need to change macrons, this title deserves it. Akld guy (talk) 04:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
@Akld guy: I suppose it's up to you if you find those arguments persuasive, but as I noted they were discussed widely on Wikipedia with regards to a variety of languages and a broad consensus was reached to include diacritics in (e.g.) Hungarian, Czech, and Vietnamese names (at least in most cases -- I'd have to go digging to find relevant RfCs etc.). Also I have to admit that I find your discussion of Hōne Heke bizarre -- the article looks fine to me, I have no idea why anyone would find the pronunciation rules you suggest to be binding. English has a huge diversity of pronunciation-spelling combinations, particularly when dealing with words that originate in other languages. --JBL (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I think we shouldn't forget that for most non-NZers the pronunciation of Maori words is difficult, macrons or not. Ideally, all WP editors should become familiar with using and reading the phonetic script, but I do not think that will happen. It is also good to get some outside input so thanks to Joel B. Lewis. I agree that diacritics are now becoming common elsewhere for personal names, and to a lesser extent for place names and other proper nouns. They are used regularly when Irish words are used in English, such as Seán Ó Ríordáin, born in Baile Mhúirne, and in Wales too, although this seems to be limited more to personal names, such as Owain Glyndŵr. In answer to an earlier question by Dushan Jugum, one idea about using macrons on WP is 1/ If the word is written as an English word in a standard NZ English dictionary. (I checked in two dictionaries, from 2015 and 1996: both used Māori exclusively, but I couldn't find any other words with macrons.) 2/ If backed by quality reliable sources that must be at least ten years old. This would comply with basic WP RS policy and follow the 10YT. Therefore, we cannot use the very recent spelling changes in most of the media to justify macron spellings. 3/ If a place name has two official spellings, the English or non macron version should be used. From a lengthy discussion a few months ago it seems to me that place name spelling is not as simple as it is sometimes made out to be, and that macron/Maori spellings are used as the default or 'correct' version. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh come on, you can't misuse the ten year test to argue that the only reliable sources here are ten years old! This is not part of the definition of reliable sources. 10YT is meant to help address a recentist bias in topics covered: "will this article make sense in 10 years?". Wikipedia needs to reflect current standard usage, not the usage of ten years ago; a 1996 dictionary is no use, and even a 2015 one predates most of the usage changes. Sometimes I get the impression that the macron haters think macrons are some sort of short-lived fad that will disappear again next year, or when there's a change of government. They'd better come up with some evidence to back that up: they're contradicting all the linguists and Te Reo experts I've been talking to. Also thanks, Joel B. Lewis, for pointing out that this argument has already been thrashed out in other parts of Wikipedia; it does seem likely the arguments against macrons will in the long run be rejected too, for the same reasons. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 06:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, since you are so keen on macrons, how about you fix the appalling title at Hōne Heke, which I complained about (above). C'mon, fix it. Don't leave it half done. Akld guy (talk) 06:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm a bit puzzled what sort of point you're trying to make. If it's "English spelling should consistently indicate pronunciation", well, you're fighting a lost battle there. Good luck. If instead you're saying "Hōne Heke is not the standard way of writing his name", well, take that up with MOTAT, Stuff newspapers, Auckland University Press, Whanganui Regional Museum, the Ministry of Culture and Heritage, and NZ On Screen.[5][6][7][8][9][10] If you've come up with an improved orthography for Māori loanwords you want to share, take it up with government, education, and the media, and let us know how that goes. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 07:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I didn't check any of those, assuming good faith on your part. It's hard to argue against nonsensical additions and omissions of macrons when they are government policy. It's not like the govt is trying to destroy te Reo, is it? Akld guy (talk) 08:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

On Monday Stuff spells without Macrons; on Tuesday it spells with Macrons. Does that mean the Tuesday Stuff is reliable and the Monday Stuff is not a reliable source of common usage? I have not seen anybody here that I would label as anything close to being a macron hater. A fad? That possibility must be considered, even if it proves to be incorrect. The rapid saturation of NZ articles with macrons in a very short time span certainly does raise questions of bias and of being a short term fad. The fact that current legislation obliges, not just encourages, govt bodies to be biased towards Maori spelling makes it incumbent on us to be seen to be indisputably independent of any form of outside agenda based influence. That was really the intent of mentioning the ten year test. If macrons continue to be used by these same sources in ten years then macron use is less likely to be a fad. My comments were a reply to a question asking for ideas: that was all. I am sure there are other ideas out there, no doubt many better than mine. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Giantflightlessbirds that this seems like a nonsensical invocation of the ten year test. Usage can change for all sorts of reasons -- Paul Erdős's name used to be misspelled routinely in non-Hungarian sources because typesetting was a lot of work and it was easier to just use an umlaut, but now with the wonders of Unicode that's not an issue. (As I said, I don't know anything particular about the situation in NZ.) --JBL (talk) 03:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure the 'correct' spelling of a name or any word is the right measure to use. Reliable secondary sources in the article's language is what determines the spelling to use. Yes, usage can change for various reasons, and quickly, but that new usage should only be reflected here if quality reliable sources confirm it. Whatever is the 'correct' spelling of a word should not be our first consideration because it can depend on many factors, some of them subjective. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. We use full Unicode fonts for Latin letters in all languages, even Maltese which has the strangest. The only exceptions to these are a few non-Anglo bio articles which have been targeted for "English names" by diacritic-disliking editors (in some rather creepy cases by fanboys, go figure). These 3-4 targeted individuals aside, vowels are distinguished by a diacritic in many languages and thus on en.Wikipedia. If standard Maori is now using a diacritic instead of double letter or non-indication we should indicate, for WP:CONSISTENCY with the overall High MOS of the project. However there is a problem here; Māori is not the language of a separate nation state like Malta, so for many place names both English and Maori exist with the only distinguishing factor being the macron. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

This RNZ article might settle it: "The New Zealand Geographic Board Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa has made 824 Māori place names official, including adding macrons to about 300 of them."[11]—Hugh (talk) 04:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

This adds weight to the no macrons argument. The article confirms that these words are without doubt Maori, not English, words. It says nothing about what the English word is for these places. It also says: The remaining names were made official to support the Say it Tika campaign. That speaks for itself. Most importantly, since when has being the official spelling been the rule wikipedians follow when naming a place here? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Great to see this confirmation of the use of macrons from the official gazette (for some names). By any measure, this is a 'quality source' confirming the spelling of these Māori names, which are in everyday use as loanwords in New Zealand English. Relating to the specific discussion of the changes that have triggered this issue, the official names are now Ngongotahā [12] and Paekākāriki[13]. Ready.eddy (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Since the discussion about the spelling of Paekākāriki started there have been some shifts in context that affect the discussion. Firstly, major newspapers such as the Herald and Stuff have begun using macrons, secondly the official name of Paekākāriki (among other names) has been changed to include macrons. Given the change to the official name of Paekākāriki, it seems it is now time to change the spelling of Paekākāriki throughout English Wikipedia (and similarly, for example, for other names such as Ngongotahā that have had their official spelling changed)? (attention Utunga, Ross Finlayson, talk). It is my view that all Māori loanwords that are used in English language Wikipedia should use macrons (excepting cases, for example, where the spelling is not clear). To me, this would make a simple policy that could be applied across all of New Zealand Wikipedia, and that would be broadly consistent with the way that macrons are now being used in the media. At the moment the policy is not consistent (with placenames treated differently than other words), and this is confusing. In the meantime, however, I would like to change the spelling of Paekākāriki, in particular, reflecting its official name. Ready.eddy (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

At the moment, I think we should do some work adding the official name (with macrons) in the lead section, as was is done with Montreal - e.g. Paekakariki (officially Paekākāriki) is a town in the Kapiti Coast District... That should solve half the debate. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 08:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The signposts now use macrons (eg Taupō), as do most websites (eg Taupō Council), but not Wikipedia. Why should Wikipædia stick with the old unofficial spelling, when other websites haven't? Johnragla (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Being official is not the determining factor; neither is what is used on the internet. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Who or what is the determining factor and how is it evidenced? Johnragla (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Common usage evidenced by reliable sources: see above. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

'Usage' appears 27 times on this page, but not one goes with evidence that missing macrons is still common. Where above? Johnragla (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not giving an opinion about whether wikipedia should or should not put a macron on Taupo: I am just saying that the decision on what to do does not depend on the official spelling, nor on road sign usage, nor on how it is spelt on most internet sites. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

If it doesn't depend on official spelling, road signs, or most internet sites, what's left for it to depend on, which can be cited in Wikipedia? Johnragla (talk) 01:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

It depends on common usage as used by reliable sources, not what the official spelling is. Usually they are the same but not always. See the Stewart Island article. The official name is not Stewart Island but Stewart Island / Rakiura: we use Stewart Island though because that is the name most commonly used as confirmed by reliable sources. You also have to be careful when determining what constitutes a reliable source. A huge number of online sites are not reliable. See RS. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Why is the official spelling not a reliable source? The statement that, "For most of the twentieth century, "Stewart Island" was the official name, and that is still in common use by most New Zealanders" is not supported by the reference given. What is a 'reliable' source for it? Johnragla (talk) 03:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

With 5,000 edits, why are you asking me what a reliable source is? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Because I've not come across a definition which seems to exclude official spellings, signs and council and media websites. I'm still curious to know how you define a reliable source and which one(s) support the Stewart Island / Rakiura statement. Johnragla (talk) 05:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I just did a quick search for "Taupō". Are Radio New Zealand, TVNZ, the NZ Herald, Te Ara, Newshub, the Royal Society of New Zealand, and New Zealand Geographic not reliable sources? Because they all seem to be using "Taupō" now. We certainly use them as RSs in other articles. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 07:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
WP:WIAN would regard the above sources listed by Giantflightlessbirds as reliable, and also says that, "Many governments have an agency to standardize the use of place names …" and describing them as "disinterested, authoritative reference works [that] are almost always reliable if they are current". In the case of New Zealand this would be the NZGB gazetteer. For the town by the large lake in the middle of the North Island, the gazetteer gives Taupō. Paora (talk) 11:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
GFB, I am not sure you have answered Johnragla's original question, which I assume you have read. Johnragla, the problem with your original question is the way it was constructed. The starting point should have been common usage as evidenced by reliable sources, not whether a word is official or unofficial, nor what non-specified 'other' websites use. I think it is important to be precise when thinking about and discussing topics like this to keep focused and to avoid the sort of endless discussions you see above and to stop editors veering off topic. Do I need to say that if you follow the common usage-reliable sources line you will usually, but not always, end up with the same answer as you would get by following the official usage-number of websites line? That is not the point though. You also asked: "Why is the official spelling not a reliable source?" Because it is a spelling, not a source, is the simple answer. A reliable source might, however, use that spelling, which would support that spelling's use as common usage. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


It makes me so sad that through their sheer stubborn headed refusal to concede the well supported, clear arguments and general willingness to just argue the point endlessly on and on and waste everyone's time and energy until everyone else gives up users such as Roger 8 Roger and Ross Finlayson have been able to effectively block the discussion about the use of macrons. Reading this thread the clear majority of editors and in my opinion the strong preponderance of discussion there is clear support to clarify the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand)#Place_names to allow for (at the very least) the use of names in widely supported, reliable sources and yet the policy remains undefined 'at present no consensus has been forthcoming' and the actions in practice is to vigorously revert changes to add macrons despite the fact that 'no consensus has been forthcoming'. The policy is still not resolved. How can we actually resolve this issue and get to real consensus on this? Utunga (talk) 02:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps this issue cannot be resolved because there is not consensus. So far the discussion has not provided the insight or evidence that has lead to a change in the position of those for, or the position of those against, using macrons in the English Wikipedia even for Maori words. I am sure it is frustrating for proponents of using macrons because were there is no consensus, status quo rules (ie no macrons). I did think the earlier claim that English does have Maori loan words was interesting but the relevance to this debate is whether Maori loan words have macrons when put into English dictionaries ? Just for interest I looked up "kūmera" in three common English dictionary sources Oxford: "kumara", Merriam-Webster: "kumara" & Chambers: "kumara".
Some would also claim spelling in English dictionary is also not necessarily common usage and so I then Google searched "kūmera" (229 results), "kumera" (1,090,000 results) and "kumara" (16,200,000 results). Google search is surely one form of common usage and searching "kūmera" is valid but the very poor results on even this common Maori loan word does indicate the use of "kūmera" across internet web sites is less than 0.03% compared to "kumera" and less than 0.002% compared to "kumara" (ie kūmera is an uncommon spelling).
I can see the point being made by Roger 8 Roger, Ross Finlayson and others. My specific concern is highlighted above which is the use of uncommon word spellings in English Wikipedia articles. This may lead (especially non-New Zealanders and English-as-a-second-language people) not being able to find further relevant information on a word should they web search using the macronised word copied from the English Wikipedia (because macrons are rarely used in English spelling) Bigglesjames (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
You do need to search with the correct spellings. There is no 'e' in kumara or kūmara, so the appropriate Google search is "kūmara". For me, that returns 15,400,000 results. However, Google seems to provide results for both versions in each search. The seach for "kumara" returns a listing at in first place, which uses the macron, and the search for "kūmara" returns in first place, which also uses the macron. If I search using I get different numbers, with the macron version giving me slightly more hits, but the same first hits for each search. I don't think these results are terribly meaningful.-gadfium 03:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Good point, I did not start with the correct Maori spelling of kūmara although I must note your Google search URL actually Google searches for kumara without a macron. However, while the results from entering kūmara into the Google search page does give 5,4000,000 results which is good, it also generates quite a different URL that includes "safe=off" (switching Google Safesearch Off) and a number of other elements. Looking at this a bit closer, IMO Google may just be good at automatically removing the macron as part of its search ... I agree these results are not terribly meaningful as they do not show usage. What would probably provide a better indication of usage is forcing Google to only search for the exact word by adding ""s. This results in "kumara" (14,700,000 results) vs "kūmara" (38,100 results) a ratio of about 380:1 between the number of web sites hits using "kumara" vs using "kūmara". Bigglesjames (talk) 05:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting my mistake with the URL. Putting quotes on it does indeed make quite a difference.-gadfium 05:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for engaging positively to try and resolve this important issue. Bigglesjames (talk) 06:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Briefly, because this has already been discussed extensively in the Paekākariki debate and the macron debate above: 1. Google searh and Ngram results are not reliable guides to current usage, for reasons that include those you've just mentioned. 2. The discussion is about pages in NZ English, so non-NZ dictionaries aren't relevant. Māori loanwords have macrons in current (not five- or ten-year-old) NZ dictionaries and style guides. 3. Because there's been a widespread change in usage in reliable sources in NZ about the last 5 years, only recent sources count when assessing current usage. Yes, this needs to be written up as a proposal for discussion in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(New_Zealand)#Place_names, not here, before anything can be changed.—Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 07:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I think stubborn is the wrong description, Utunga, of people who hold differing opinions. If you are baiting me to reply, then you have succeeded. I will try another rendering of my opinion, from a slightly different angle. I will use the word kumara, but the point is the same for most Maori words. The word kumara was a foreign loan word. When it was first used as such in English it's spelling was irrelevant: the important point is that it was a foreign word, mis-spelt or not. Over time (how long we do not know) the word became assimilated into English so it was no longer a purely foreign word but instead an English word of foreign origin. When foreign loan words assimilate they adapt to fit better with English, often dropping diacritics. So, kumara, as an assimilated English word of foreign origin, in English, is spelt kumara: in Maori it is spelt kūmara. The only way I would spell it with a macron in an English sentence is if I were treating it as an non-assimilated foreign loan word. So when people huff and puff about the 'correct' spelling of words like kumara, it depends entirely on whether we are using the Maori word or the English word.

What has been happening in recent times is an attempt to turn back the clock and pretend that we have always been using the non-assimilated Maori word kūmara, but have been spelling it wrong. This has been supported by dubious evidence that it always would have been spelt kūmara if only typewrighters and keyboards had had macrons. And all the time we have the 1987 Maori language act and associated commission whose job it is to promote and encourage the use of all things Maori, with similar legal obligations to do that imposed on all government bodies. In NZ English, this form of positive discrimination might work and we might all start reverting to using assimilated Maori word as foreign loan words again. There seems to be a trend to do this throughout the English speaking world, not just here in NZ. Then, RSs will use macrons and there will be no no excuse on WP not to use macrons in NZ articles. That point may already have been reached. It has not been reached outside NZ though, and it may never be reached. I occasionally come across non-NZ WP articles where someone has thrown in a macron on common English words, such as Maori. I remove the macron because the article is not written in NZ English, in the same way I would change the word centre to center as appropriate. Anyway, my apologies if this sounds repetitive of reads like a lecture. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

long-time lurker in this conversation here ... I think there is a glimmer of consensus-forming there? RSs will use macrons and there will be no no excuse on WP not to use macrons in NZ articles. That point may already have been reached. So, can we commit to macrons on articles about New Zealand place names now? Which is the question that started this multi-year thread... Somej (talk) 08:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Google search for "taupo" (10,100,000 results) vs "Taupō" (360,000 results). Does a ratio of 28:1 means the 1 is Common Usage ? Bigglesjames (talk) 10:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Google searches are regularly dismissed as very unreliable. I have had my wrist slapped more than once for trying to use them. Very many of those 10m search results will have come directly or indirectly from govt bodies that are obliged to use macrons, so IMO they should not be counted. What can be counted though are spellings from independent sources that have chosen to use macrons, such as Fairfax. How to separate these sources in a google search though is beyond me. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Reference indent to Macron discussion[edit]


  1. ^ The man on a mission to get New Zealand's Māori out of prison
  2. ^ Maori Language, Once Shunned, Is Having a Renaissance in New Zealand
  3. ^ Sullivan, Margaret (2014-01-16). "On Times Language Use: Dwarfs, Indians and More". Public Editor's Journal. Retrieved 2019-02-21.
  4. ^ AS/NZS 4819:2011 s. 3.5.6, 4.7.7.
  5. ^ "Hōne Heke's tribal flag comes to Auckland in time for the referendum". MOTAT. 2016. Retrieved 2018-12-17.
  6. ^ Leaman, Aaron (14 September 2018). "Kerikeri students embrace New Zealand history". Stuff. Retrieved 2018-12-17. The image of Hōne Heke chopping down the British flag on Maiki hill above Kororāreka in 1845 is the enduring symbol of the Northern War.
  7. ^ Mason, Ngahiraka (2016). Gottfried Lindauer's New Zealand: The Māori Portraits. Auckland: Auckland University Press. pp. Pl. 2. his great-uncle chief Hōne Heke Pokai (?–1850), he is regarded as a significant ancestor of Ngāpuhi.
  8. ^ Twomey, Āwhina (25 October 2017). "Hōne Heke and the flagpole". Whanganui Regional Museum blog. Retrieved 17 December 2018.
  9. ^ "Hōne Heke | NZHistory, New Zealand history online". Retrieved 2018-12-17.
  10. ^ NZ On Screen. "The Governor - The Reverend Traitor (Episode One) | Television | NZ On Screen". Retrieved 2018-12-17. ...flag-pole chopping Hōne Heke
  11. ^ "More than 800 Māori place names officially recognised". RNZ. 2019-06-25. Retrieved 2019-06-25.
  12. ^
  13. ^

The "Cyclopedia of New Zealand", 1897-1908, FYI[edit]

Cover of The Cyclopedia of New Zealand (volume 2)

Today I discovered an interesting online resource that may be useful for filling in historical details for New Zealand-related Wikipedia pages. Victoria University of Wellington (as it's still called, at least for now :-) has digitized and put online a "Cyclopedia (sic) of New Zealand" that was published in six volumes between 1897 and 1908.

Unfortunately, browsing this is non-trivial; the trick is to click on the links near the bottom of the page - below the line "For tips on searching The Cyclopedia see Cyclopedia Search Tips" - not the links above that line. For example, the first volume (the "Wellington Provincial District") can be found here: [5]

Also, I couldn't get searching to work, but each volume is organized geographically, so if you're looking for historical information about particular towns, then it should be easy to find. Ross Finlayson (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

We have an article about it, called The Cyclopedia of New Zealand. The work is a useful historical source, but should be used with a degree of caution, particularly with regards to people – the WP article says it is vanity press, with articles being largely paid for by their subjects. Nurg (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Some of the digitisation didn't work very well. I've got four of the Cyclopedias as hardcopies so if you are facing a problem of that nature let me know and I'll see whether I can help. Schwede66 07:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Ugh! My apoligies; I missed the comment below from Stuartyeates; it seems that we can just upload the front-matter image from NZETC, since it is CC-BY-SA. Sorry if I've caused a flap. (uploaded image at File:Cyc01CyclP0001a_touch.pngJon (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
The article could do with an image of the Cyclopedia front cover, since you have a hard copy :-) Jon (talk) 13:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Schwede66; can you grab an image of the inside front-matter, similar to the NZETC image that I assume we can't use? Cheers Jon (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
OK, here's the thing: (a) part of my day job involves running the technical side of ; (b) the NZETC versions are under a CC license, so images can be uploaded citing them as source ; (c) the cyclopedias are vanity press (most people paid to be in them), just very old vanity press; (d) best way to search these is using a limiter on a google search. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Missing historic NZ time zones[edit]

See UTC time offsets#NZ historic TZs for Template talk post on missing 1927/28 and Chatham Islands historic time zones. (talk) 09:10, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

New Zealand wine region articles[edit]

Hi, as per the #New Zealand wine discussion above (and others elsewhere) I've created initial Redirects with possibilities for the major NZ wine regions. These currently point to the corresponding sections of the New Zealand wine article, with a view to spinning these off into separate articles over the next few weeks or months. I've also cargo-cult-copied an existing navigation template, Template:Wine regions of New Zealand, which has the links to these articles, included here for convenience:

Please feel free to be WP:BOLD and start hacking on a new wine region article! The Central Otago article as already existed for some time, and it's about time the others got some attention too. Any questions, please reply here or get in touch some how, and if you are in Wellington in the month week or two, I hope to see you at the next Wiki meet up. Happy New Year!—Jon (talk) 04:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

That looks great; at a Wikibrunch last year some of us were talking about seriously working on the coverage of NZ wine on Wikipedia, and even organising a "Wiki Loves Wine" weekend in the Wairarapa this summer, with a winery to host. Do come along to one of the Wellington meetups and we can chat about it. –Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 00:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

NZ By-elections[edit]

Have completed the NZ by-elections for 1891 on with a brief article on each of the missing ones. And started on by-elections to 1890. With electorates incorporating City of or Town of it is preferable to include redirects from the various options used in some articles; eg for 1877 City of Auckland West by-election include redirects from 1877 Auckland West by-election, also City of Auckland West by-election, 1877 and Auckland West by-election, 1877: some politician articles and by-election templates use the shorter name without “city of” etc. The by-election articles are brief, but I try and mention (from Papers Past) something about unsuccessful candidates who do not have an article on them.

Have also added a link to obituaries from Papers Past for some of the brief articles on 19c politicians; they often say where from etc. Noticed while doing it for Isaac Wilson (New Zealand politician) that he died in 1912 not 1901 (as given in JO Wilson’s "Parliamentary Record"); there was an Isaac Wilson from Kaiapoi who hung himself from a tree in 1901, but no mention in the news item on him of the Kaiapoi Woollen Mills etc that the ex-MP was involved with! See his article’s talk page. An obituary on Henry Manders ("Alas poor Manders") said he died during a spree. Hugo999 (talk) 10:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Upcoming Wikipedia events in Wellington[edit]

Critter of the Week Wikibrunch

  • Sat 12 Jan
  • 10:30 am–1:00 pm
  • Home Cafe, National Library, 70 Molesworth St

Wikipedians provide backup for Jesse Mulligan's popular radio show, and we’re trying to recruit a Critter Task Force to make sure there are good, up-to-date articles for every species talked about. Wikipedians interested in natural history should come along to this brunch and learn about how you can help: editing, proofing, finding sources, tracking down photos.

Historic Buildings in Wikidata

  • Sun 13 Jan
  • 11:00 am–4:00 pm
  • Wellington City Archives, 28 Barker St

When Asaf Bartov gave a Wikidata masterclass last year, we promised we would run a beginner’s class in Wikidata. This is is it. If you’re interested in Wikidata, or in Wellington’s heritage, and want to learn about creating items, choosing properties, and adding photos, come along for a hands-on workshop.

Wikidrinks: Happy Birthday, Wikipedia!

  • Tues 15 Jan
  • 6:00–9:30 pm
  • Dragonfly (courtyard out back), 70 Courtenay Pl

A chance to celebrate Wikipedia Day (Wikipedia turns 18, so can legally drink in NZ), catch up and make plans for the next few months.

See the NZ Wikipedian at Large project for more upcoming events. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Excellent! I'd like to come along to the wikidata event; can I come along with a pre-canned question? I'm trying to figure out how to make the VIVC grape variety database ID numbers a first-class thing in Wikidata so that we can automatically link it up somehow(?) from Template:Infobox grape variety, and possibly make it behave like an authority control (or at least make it come up with the wikidata barcode thing at the bottom, when the wiki article somehow knows it should display a link to its wikidata entry; I've tried to do that with e.g. Corvinone or Sagrantino). Sorry if 1. I'm not making sense, and/or that 2. it's not related to heritage buildings! —Jon (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Jon, sounds like a rather specialist question! I work on Wikidata a bit but won't be there (am based in Christchurch). When I have tricky queries like that I work with MisterSynergy who is an admin on Wikidata. Very knowledgeable guy! Schwede66 03:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Ambrosia10, who'll be there, will be able to help you. She also knows her wine. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Re-creating a deleted page[edit]

Hi there, I am a new Wikipedia contributor and I've been working on adding bios of NZ writers. I'd like to add one for Ashleigh Young, but a red link for her goes to a page saying that "A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted." ( This was in 2016 and could have been done on grounds of non-notability, but she has won a big overseas prize since then. I have posted a query on the talk page of the editor who deleted it, but there is a note that he/she may now off Wikipedia and previous queries on similar topics have gone unanswered. The same applies for NZ writer Fifi Colston, whose page was deleted in 2011 ( but she has won a lot of awards since then. I feel that in both cases, mine would be a new page with different content, so is it OK just to go ahead? Or do I need to try and find the original page? Thanks for any advice! --Pippipip (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Pippipip: The page WP:Requests for undeletion may help you. Akld guy (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
@Akld guy: OK, I'll try that - thanks! --Pippipip (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
And now I know about Template:ping, cheers! Jon (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I've moved Colston to Draft:Fifi Colston as it needs work before it goes back to mainspace. Ashleigh Young has just been created from scratch. If you'd like to have a look through the deleted version of the Young article please say so and I'll make that available, too. Schwede66 03:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia Community User Group New Zealand[edit]

Hi guys, I'm trying to establish Wikimedia Community User Group New Zealand that would eventually lead into a regular chapter. It's going to a be a long journey but I'm determined. And I'll need your help. If you're keen to join us, please, put your signature on Meta. Feel free to add suggestions of our possible objectives and goals on a discussion page or directly into the main page. That'd be great. I hope to see you there! Regards, Podzemnik (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I didn't realise this idea had started way back in January! Let's get it done! @Giantflightlessbirds: has this user group been activated yet or shall one of the other NZ WP'ans go ahead and submit the request to start? MurielMary (talk) 02:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Liste der Baudenkmale in Greymouth[edit]

Is there anyone with technical skills who could help to create list on NZ heritage buildings like de:Liste der Baudenkmale in Greymouth? I think it should be possible with some help of a bot. Data at are quite well structured I think. Regards, Podzemnik (talk) 11:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Podzemnik, I remember using an Excel file (, "Export the full List") from the heritage website, then using some website converter (like to change it into a wiki table to start the List of historic places in Dunedin page. I would suggest doing the whole West Coast at once. Let us known what your next step is I might be able to help. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)).
If we embark on a project like that, may I suggest that we get the background info correct on Wikidata and then generate the various lists automatically? Schwede66 20:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be best to work with Heritage NZ and get them to export their entire list for us from their database as a Wikidata-friendly spreadsheet, and do the Wikidata work with that? I agree we're beyond the days of manually creating lists in Wikipedia but not Wikidata. (Update: it looks like the entire list is already in Wikidata. So we should be working on improving those entries, as we recently did in Wellington at the Historic Buildings in Wikidata meetup). —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Not quite sure what exactly you mean by "beyond the days of manually creating lists in Wikipedia but not Wikidata". I'm currently working on a spreadsheet that I will use to amend Wikidata entries for the East German sports people listed in a book; much easier to start with a spreadsheet than manually doing the work on Wikidata. Schwede66 19:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Biography of Nicola Kawana, needs references since 2006[edit]

Greetings, Asking for help with article Nicola Kawana was tagged in 2006 as having no references. Hoping members of New Zealand wikiproject may be able to improve this article (totally outside my area of expertise). Thanks. JoeHebda (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, took some refs from Huia Samuels, one is now only available on pressreader. The rest are puff pieces. If somone here loves Shortland Street they should do it right. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)).
@Dushan Jugum: Thanks for improving the article. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Hawke's Bay Knowledge Base digital archive[edit]

Here's a mine of interesting historical and contemporary information about the Hawke's Bay region: the recently revamped Knowledge Bank, from the Hawke's Bay Digital Archives Trust. Just a pity they seem to have chosen CC-BY-NC 4.0 as their default license. I wonder if they could be persuaded? Jon (talk) 09:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Peter Wells[edit]

Peter Wells has just died. The article is nominated at WP:ITN/C to appear on the front page under recent deaths. I think it needs a bit more work before it'll be accepted for publication there. If anyone can spare some time to help edit (and particularly to add citations), it would be appreciated. Ngā mihi. —Hugh (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Te Ara and Jock Phillips[edit]

I've been working on the Te Ara: The Encyclopedia of New Zealand article and it could do with some more input from more knowledgeable folks; and along the way I've noticed the Jock Phillips article is a bit rough too. Any help appreciated — Jon (talk) 12:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Two talks in Palmerston North[edit]

I'm giving a couple of lunchtime talks next week on the Massey campus in Palmerston North, one aimed at the general public and the other at researchers wanting to start engaging with Wikimedia. I'll be around on Tuesday, Wednesday, and most of Thursday to meet with anyone who's interested in talking Wikipedia. Please feel free to pass this on to anyone you think might be keen. More info and bookings.

  • 12:10–13:00, Tue 19 Mar, SSLB3: How Wiki Works (for the public)
  • 12:10–13:00, Wed 20 Mar, SDP4.30, Peren Seminar Room: Engaging with Wikimedia (for researchers)

Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 07:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Victims section in Christchurch mosque shootings[edit]

Seeking consensus on a "Casualties and victims" section for the Christchurch mosque shootings article. It includes a table listing the known victims by nationality. If you can, please indicate your support or objection at Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings#Casualties and victims. Neegzistuoja (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


Was trying to figure out what the scope is of the Putiki page on the Māori WP; see the empty Wikidata entry. Is that about the suburb of Whanganui? Schwede66 18:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Schwede66: I'd say so, yes; that's certainly what the mi.WP page is about. —Hugh (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Historic New Zealand political parties[edit]

Some of the oldest template red links in Wikipedia are in Template:Historic New Zealand political parties: Advance New Zealand, Pakeha Party, United Political Party, Women's Independence Party. These have been in the template since at least 2005. Does anyone want to tackle any of these? bd2412 T 00:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

fixed up the link for "united (ii)", the page United New Zealand already exists Somej (talk) 05:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Creation of a te reo wikipedia[edit]

I think there should be a te reo version of wikipedia simply because te reo is increasingly becoming part of every day life in New Zealand so it makes sense.Luke'n'Thomas (talk) 03:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Right here. J947(c), at 03:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

How to deal with possible conflict of interest editing by IPs?[edit]

A couple of IPs - here[6] and here[7] - have recently been making lots of edits to NZ and Pacific Island-related pages, mostly to add a reference to a single recently-published book. At first glance (not having read the book), the reference appears to be at least somewhat relevant, but it seems likely that the IP editors are closely associated with the book in some way - e.g., its author or publisher. I'm not sure that they've done anything wrong here, except that if there's a conflict of interest, then they should probably reveal it. What's the best way (if anything) to deal with this? Ross Finlayson (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I noticed them as well. You could ask politely on their talk page(s) whether they have an association with the book, and if you fail to get a response you could post at WP:COIN. The best solution, but one that involves a lot more effort, would be to get a copy of the book from your local library (the Auckland library system has multiple copies available, so I expect other NZ libraries will have it) and check how relevant some of the references are.-gadfium 03:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I've just added a note to the IPs' talk pages. Ross Finlayson (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
The best solution, but one that involves a lot more effort, would be to get a copy of the book ... and check how relevant some of the references are. Yes, indeed. So many interesting-looking books, so little time. I'm reminded of a time last year when a user (not an IP) added several references to a book claiming that the 'mistakes' in Captain Cook's map (showing Banks Peninsula as an island, and Stewart Island as a peninsula) weren't really mistakes at all, but were done deliberately to mislead England's adversaries. That was possibly also a conflict of interest, though no-one called them out on this. But the book looked interesting, and has been on my 'to read' list since. Ross Finlayson (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
They now have a new IP here[8] Ross Finlayson (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
And another IP here[9] Ross Finlayson (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I've just posted a note about this on WP:COIN Ross Finlayson (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

This reference spam continues (all from IP addresses that appear to be located somewhere in the Bay of Plenty). I've posted a note about it here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Ongoing_reference_spam_for_a_book_"Pathway_of_the_Birds" Ross Finlayson (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I've started a dialog with the author of the book at User talk: 04:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Request for input on possible merge[edit]

Formal request has been received to merge the article New Zealand Democratic Party for Social Credit into Social Credit Party (New Zealand); dated: March 2019. Proposer's Rationale: These are two iterations of the same political party which have separate articles. Social Credit renamed themselves as the Democratic Party in 1985 but in 2018 reverted back to being the Social Credit Party. The period as the Democratic Party would be now best served as a separate section in the article for the Social Credit Party. >>>Disussion is Here<<< GenQuest "Talk to Me" 17:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

sounds sensible Somej (talk) 10:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


I just noticed while looking something up that Polyfest is a red link. If I ever get my free time back I could try writing something myself but it would be good if someone with more spare time and better resources (and more actual Wikipedia experience!) got in ahead of me. Daveosaurus (talk) 10:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Mahara software article[edit]

Hi - in order to avoid being inundated by a bunch of bots complaining about orphaned images, copyright and so on, I have moved a draft article for Mahara (software) into main article space and marked it as a free software stub. Is there a good way to mark my potential COI given that I currently work at Catalyst, which initially developed it? Jon (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jonathanischoice: Your COI declaration seems fine, but you might be considered to have a finanical conflict of interest if you were/are an employee working for the company which developed the software. You might want to ask about that at WP:COIN.
As for moving the article the article just to avoid bot messages about image use and image copyright, well that wasn't necessarily a good idea because it might've created other problems. Even stubs are expected to be Wikipedia notable and this software doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia's general notablility guideline or even WP:PRODUCT, at least as currently sourced. There might be a software-specifc guideiline which this does meet and perhaps someone from this WikiProject will take a look and clarify whether that's the case, but it would've been better for you to submit the draft for review via WP:AFC instead of moving it to the mainspace yourself, especially given your COI declaration. As a draft you probably could've continued to work on improving things and better establishing Wikipedia notablility. Now that it's in the article namespace it's there to be edit by anyone and may even possibly end up being deleted if it's felt that the subject in not Wikipedia notable enough or not yet notable enough for an article to be written about it. Moreover, because of your COI, you're going to be expected to avoid directly editing the article yourself and instead make suggestions on the article talk page per WP:COIADVICE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Hi, thanks for your explanations, very useful. As you can probably tell, although I've been on WP for a long time I'm much more of a part-time dabbler than a power user, so I'm not always up to speed with all the regs! Is it worth moving the article into the draft namespace? It's not the end of the world if the images get deleted I guess. — Jon (talk) 01:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out![edit]

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Categories being required to use "organization" rather than "organisation"[edit]

In case anyone wasn't aware, there was a recent RfC on requiring all categories to use "organization" rather than "organisation", which was closed in favour of the proposal. There is currently a discussion on whether there was sufficient notifications of this discussion. Comments are welcomed. Cheers, Number 57 20:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion has been reopened here. Number 57 19:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

DELETED by creator / editor - as permission to share the {link} to the facebook group wasn't obtained. re: /* Waitahuna Railway Station - currently undergoing restoration. */ (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

New NZ school related article - help[edit]

Hey everyone, I am relatively new to Wikipedia (I have been editing articles for around a month) and have just created my first article. I was just looking for any feedback anyone may have or edits that you might want to make. Of course new information for the page is welcomed too. One thing I noticed is that the page doesn't seem to be indexed - it doesn't come up when I search for it, so if anyone could help with that too that would be great. The article is Balmoral School. Thanks. WBPchur (talk) 08:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi WBPchur. The page needs to be approved before it goes to google (you can still search it in Wikipedia). They are a little snowed under. In my experience it either gets approved in the first few days or you will have to wait for up to a month. Editors like to work at the start or end of lists. A few editors also patrol the new page area and will make changes to new pages. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)).
Hi Dushan Jugum. Thanks for your response. Do you know if the article has automatically been submitted for approval or do I have to do something manually? Thanks again for your help. WBPchur (talk) 09:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Everything looks good WBPchur, now you just have to wait. Sometimes the reviewer will have some suggestions. Do not make my mistake and keep on constantly checking if the page has been promoted, you will be sent a notice when it happens and it may be a while. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)).
Alright thanks for your help Dushan Jugum. I'm kind of new here so I'm still learning, but hopefully I should be good pretty soon. All the best! WBPchur (talk) 09:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Te Wharehuia Milroy[edit]

The Māori acaedmic Te Wharehuia Milroy has died. Help in editing his article would be much appreciated. —Hugh (talk) 01:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Zero Carbon Bill possible article?[edit]

Would anyone be interested in collaborating on an article about the newly introduced Zero Carbon Bill? Here are some useful resources for anyone up for the task:

Also, I'm not sure whether the article should be titled simply Zero Carbon Bill, NZ Zero Carbon Bill or New Zealand Zero Carbon Bill? I think that this topic does deserve it's own article, though I would not like to undertake the process on my own. If anyone already is working on this article I'd love to know too. Thanks very much, WBPchur (talk) 08:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC).

Definitely worth doing. I suggest that the common name is Zero Carbon Bill, but obviously you'd also mention the official name (Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill). I'm time-poor at the moment so won't be much help. Happy to cast my eye over things once it's been progressed. Schwede66 02:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Christchurch Wikipedia events coming up[edit]

I'm based in Christchurch until June 9 and am organising some public events folks might be interested in attending, either in person or remotely.

  • Fri 17 May, 13:00–14:00: "How to vandalise Wikipedia". A1 Lecture Theatre, University of Canterbury, Ilam, Christchurch
  • Sun 19 May, 12:00–17:00: "NZ Artists edit-a-thon", Christchurch Art Gallery
  • Mon 20 May, 13:00–16:00: "Hands-on Wikipedia". 388 Puaka-James Hight Library, University of Canterbury, Ilam. UC staff and students.
  • Wed 29 May, 18:00 on: Christchurch Wikipedians Meetup. Smash Palace, 172 High Street.
  • Wed 5 June, 17:30–19:00: "What Wikipedia Means for Libraries and Archives". Hao Room at Te Hāpua Halswell Centre, 341 Halswell Road, Christchurch
  • Fri 7 June, 12:00–13:00: "From Popper to Ruby Jones: image copyrights in the age of Wikipedia." A3 Lecture Theatre, University of Canterbury, Ilam, Christchurch
  • Fri 7 June, 17:00 on: Wikidrinks. Space Academy, 371 St Asaph St
  • Sat 8 June, 10:30–16:00: "Getting New Zealand Writers into Wikipedia" Tūranga, Cathedral Square, Christchurch. $10 tickets sold as part of Word Christchurch.

There's also likely to be a Wikipedia meetup to discuss forming a NZ Wikipedia user group on May 29, venue to be confirmed Added this to the list. For more information and more events see the Wikipedian at Large events calendar.

Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

One of the main points of the 29 May meeting is to set up a New Zealand user group; hence Wikipedians outside of Christchurch may have an interest in the meeting, too. Jump onto the Christchurch Wikipedians meetup page to share your thoughts. Schwede66 01:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

"Coromandel Peninsula" or "The Coromandel": Discussion at Talk:Coromandel_Peninsula#The_Coromandel_vs_Coromandel_Peninsula[edit]

Over the past couple of months, three editors - [10], [11], and [12] - have been been making edits to the Coromandel Peninsula page, seeking to name the area "The Coromandel" rather than "Coromandel Peninsula". Each time, I (and others) have reverted these edits, arguing that the page refers to a geographical feature - named "Coromandel Peninsula" - and therefore it should continue to be named as such.

However, these editors have recently posted arguments for their position on the Talk page: Talk:Coromandel_Peninsula#The_Coromandel_vs_Coromandel_Peninsula. While I'm not sure that I agree with them, I've decided to step aside and let other NZ editors weigh in (for or against), to try to establish a consensus position. Ross Finlayson (talk) 06:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

What's holding you back? Feedback request![edit]

Kia ora koutou. I'm attending the Asia-Pacific Wikimedia Strategy Summit next weekend and would love to have some input from NZ Wikipedians to present on your behalf. The main questions for discussion seem to be:

  • What held you back or stopped you from moving forward in your work?
  • For each case, what would need to change in the movement structures to help you?

If people prefer to discuss off this page, please send me an email. MurielMary (talk) 09:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Operation Burnham[edit]

Hi there,

One article that has escaped the scope of WikiProject New Zealand is Operation Burnham, which deals with the NZSAS raid in Afghanistan and the official inquiry into Operation Burnham. I have added the template to its talk page. Can someone please assess the article. Andykatib 23:24, June 25, 2019 (UTC)

ACG Education - UP Education[edit]

Just a heads-up that needs an update. The company has split into ACG Schools and UP Education. Not too sure what the best way to handle this is. A comment has been added to the talk page that links to a press release that explains what has happened. (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio rewrite? (crossposted to Māori task force)[edit]

I've just had to tag Ngatuere Tawhirimatea Tawhao as a clear copyvio, but there's enough info in what was there (from Te Ara) that a rewrite is possible for anyone who knows a bit of Māori history. Any takers? Thanks - Grutness...wha? 07:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Bauer Media Wikipedia workshop Sat 27th July[edit]

Hi all. On Saturday I'm running a training workshop for staff at Auckland magazine publishers Bauer Media (who put out North and South, The Listener, Metro, and quite a few others). They're keen to learn what they can do to work with Wikipedia while observing the conflict-of-interest rules. Options include uploading photos they hold the copyright for, and covers they've designed (the art director of North and South tried doing this on her own but was accused of copyright violation by Commons police who didn't believe she'd designed them).

If any Auckland Wikipedians are interested in coming along and helping, there will be plenty of opportunity to work alongside editors and designers to help unlock the archives of these important NZ magazines and show what can be done with Wikipedia, Commons, and Wikidata. You're welcome to add your name to the Bauer Wikiblitz event page and turn up at Bauer Media Centre, Shed 12, CityWorks Depot, Wellesley St West at 10:00 AM sharp to sign in and help. All welcome. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 03:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Sounds great! Even if the photographers would upload their "reject" photos, i.e. whatever they don't use for publications, that would be a great boon! MurielMary (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Bernard Freyberg, 1st Baron Freyberg[edit]

A keen Australian historian (B.A.) is anxious to make this man British rather than a New Zealander. While I have strong personal opinions I thought it might be simplest to raise the matter here and let any discussion come up with a national decision. Eddaido (talk) 05:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata tidyup needed[edit]

There are two Wikidata items for the writer Robin Hyde. The older, fuller one is here: but there's also one here: which was listed as "Robyn Hyde" because that spelling mistake appears in an American listing website. How does a Wikidata item get deleted, not sure how that works? User:Ambrosia10? TIA. MurielMary (talk) 11:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

You should merge the two together, with one redirecting to the other. See wikidata:Help:Merge for instructions.Lcmortensen (mailbox) 23:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I've done the merge. Schwede66 01:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Cheers for that. MurielMary (talk) 02:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Jackie Clark article[edit]

I haven't started one because they're notorious for getting speedily deleted, but it would be nice to get an article started for Jackie Clark QSM as noted on the talk page, founder of The Aunties (and maybe, a possible former NZ cricket player?! — Jackie Clark). Suggest starting an article in the Draft namespace where it shouldn't get clobbered. Jon (talk) 23:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Is the cricket player one and the same (i.e the same person as) Clark QSM of the Aunties?? MurielMary (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Well exactly... I don't know! Jon (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

New Zealand wine regions[edit]

Hi, as I noted on Talk:New Zealand wine I've started moving the regions out into their own articles, starting with Hawke's Bay (wine). Once this is done I'd like to get the New Zealand wine article reviewed, submitted to WP:PR and work on getting it upgraded to good article status. Please help, comments suggestions etc welcome. If you want to do one, use the Wine infobox template at the top, and the navigation template at the bottom. Cheers! Jon (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Deleting a redirect?[edit]

Not sure how to tidy this up - I've created an article for, which was previously a redirect from her name to her husband's article. When I now try to move this article to "Louisa Sneldon" I can't as there is already a page with that name (it's a redirect page). How do I sort this out so the article I've written is at "Louisa Sneldon"? TIA.

In addition, the article needs to link up to the Wikidata item but I don't know how to do that either!

MurielMary (talk) 10:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Oh. I had just come across this as it was "my redirect" and have tidied it all up. Before I saw this post. Yes, you need assistance with that as the edit history of the redirect needs to be preserved. I've done a history merge as part of the process. You can just ping me when you strike problems like that. Schwede66 10:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Split Outhwaite Family into individual biographies?[edit]

I've just put a suggestion on the talk page of,_Auckland suggesting the page is split into biographies for each of the family members to enable more detail to be added to each biography without the whole page becoming unwieldy. Also it would enable each person to have their own Wikidata item as at the moment they can't (Wikidata item can't map to more than one WP page). MurielMary (talk) 10:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Consensus for suitable title[edit]

The electric power consumers' trust Auckland Energy Consumer Trust was rebranded as Entrust several years ago. The article should be moved, but Entrust is already taken. Other possibilities are [Entrust, New Zealand], [Entrust, consumer trust], [Entrust, trust], and several others. Can I get a consensus for a suitable title? I'm asking here because there have been no edits for 12 months and asking on talk pages of neglected articles seldom yields results. Akld guy (talk) 11:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

how about [Entrust (community trust)]. Then the current Entrust could become [Entrust (software developer)]. Both are specific, international, and (i think) follow the format of other ambiguous article names Somej (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
That's a great suggestion, but moving the current American article seems like overkill and unnecessary. Akld guy (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
maybe overkill, yes, but then you can also get bonus points for setting up a disambiguation page Somej (talk) 03:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I support using Entrust (community trust). No need to move the Entrust article, but add a hatnote to it for the NZ trust.-gadfium 04:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you gadfium, I support that too. Suggested hatnote: For|the consumer electrical trust in Auckland, New Zealand|[[Entrust (community trust)]]. Akld guy (talk) 06:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Looking at pageviews, the American entity is clearly the primary topic. WP:ONEOTHER thus applies, meaning that Entrust should be left alone and it's only the Kiwi outfit that needs to be disambiguated. I've done so as per the above and added a hatnote. Somebody may want to rewrite the leading sentence for the consumer trust to reflect the new name. Schwede66 10:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Less than 24 hours for consensus and/or debate? There might be some editors who haven't read this yet. Akld guy (talk) 11:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
There is zero finality to a page move. If consensus changes we’ll move again. And if you prefer a formal process then WP:RM is the venue. Schwede66 18:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't work that way. Very few editors are willing to challenge a fait accompli, unless they have exceptionally strong views (not likely here). Any further suggestions have effectively been shut down. Akld guy (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Let it be stated that further or divergent thoughts are more than welcome. Schwede66 17:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


I'd like some feedback on recent edits to Inglewood, New Zealand. Please see Talk:Inglewood, New Zealand#Notorious?.-gadfium 23:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Film/New Zealand cinema task force[edit]

I'm interested in revitalising the New Zealand cinema task force. Anyone keen? You can reach me on my talk page. Quilt Phase (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

New Zealand College of Education[edit]


I work for the New Zealand Qualification Authority and trying to have a fake wikipedia entry deleted. There is no such organisation called the New Zealand College of Education, it is not on the New Zealand Companies Register, it does not exist at the address given (60 Symonds Street) and the entry is completely derived from a scam website and a free accreditation service based in the UK. By having a wikipedia entry, this scam website is attempting to legitimise itself in order to dupe people.

I have tried to delete the Wikipedia entry twice, but people keep on reinstalling it on the false assumption that it is a legitimate entry. Can someone please explain how to report fake entries in wikipedia.RiskManagementNZQA (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC);

Corrected link to the disputed article-gadfium 03:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I am really just passing through and noted this entry, but didn't have time to fully investigate. Did a cursory search and see they claim Jim Anderton (born 1938) and Pat Walsh (born 1936) as alumni, yet the college was not established until 1992. Something's amiss. Moriori (talk) 00:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for posting here. I have proposed the article for deletion using the process outlined here: although other editors may think it is a case for "speedy deletion" which is a faster way of notifying administrators of a deletion request. Let's see what other editors think. MurielMary (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
My proposal to delete was removed by another editor who challenged it. I've edited the page instead, removing quite a bit of information and also stating that it's not accredited by NZQA. Not sure what else to do, but will come back to it later. MurielMary (talk) 02:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
[13] Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to try to write a short article for The Signpost on this scam. Anybody with information on it is invited to email me. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Why not post a link to it here? You may find that other editors would be happy to chip in. Schwede66 05:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@Smallbones: if you're writing an article about this episode, the part I found most "interesting" is that prior to the Newsroom article being published, other editors insisted that the article should stay on WP due to the existence of the College's website. As per the discussion on the article's talkpage, other editors claimed that my statement "there is nothing at 60 Symonds Street" for example was OR and that the existence of the website overrode this statement - which raises the question of how to prove that something doesn't exist. The NZQA listing of Auckland schools which doesn't include this college was all I could come up with; maybe a Google maps photo of the empty lot at 60 Symonds could have helped too, not sure. But I think that without the Newsroom article, this saga could have gone on for a very long time. MurielMary (talk) 10:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Isn't the way to deal with this to undermine the sources used to prove it does exist, rather than trying to prove that it does not exist? One web site does not make a reliable enough source, and so those editors who claimed it did were wrong. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Catch up for Christchurch-based Wiki people[edit]

I'd like to see a regular, maybe monthly, opportunity to catch up in person with other Wiki editors in Chch. Personally Monday nights suits me - any other suggestions? Venue? We've met once before in a function room at Smash Palace, which was quite good as it has a data projector so we could share what we're working on for others to see. @Schwede66: @Podzemnik: MurielMary (talk) 02:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Good idea MurielMary, thanks for that. Yup, I'm all in for Mondays. Venue - I don't mind. Maybe a library would be nicer but Smash Place did a good job last time too. Podzemnik (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Excellent. Let's do this. Next Monday is too soon. I have something on at 14 October. How about we settle for 21 October? I'll check with Johnny Moore (owner of Smash Palace) that there isn't something else on. MurielMary, will you start a Meetup page? Schwede66 21:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Sure, let's go for Monday 21st evening, venue TBC, I'll put it on the facebook page and do a meetup page. MurielMary (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Page here: Wikipedia:Meetup/Christchurch 3. @Schwede66: have you had a chance to check with Smash Palace re room availability? MurielMary (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Ah, yes. Venue is all confirmed and I did update the meetup page but forgot to comment here. Schwede66 18:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

New biography article - editing / grading would be appreciated[edit]

Kia ora everyone, I have just moved the article Arthur Guyon Purchas that I have been working on out of the draft space as I now see it fit to be a published article. It is well within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand.

If anyone could come and proofread the article and make any necessary edits that would be great. In addition to that if someone could add the WikiProject NZ template to the talk page and grade it that would also be much appreciated. I am not sure whether I would consider it a stub but there is certainly room for more information.

Please note that resources for this subject are extremely limited, which is attributable for the lack of citations, though I would deem the ones provided adequate.

Kind regards, WBPchur (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC).

Good work. Have given it a tidy-up with detailed edit summaries so that you can take these things into account with your next article. Keep it up! Schwede66 22:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks very much Schwede66. I have added a bit more to the article now so it could be considered more than start class? WBPchur (talk) 03:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC).
I had trouble parsing the last paragraph of the Later Life section, but it might just be late — Jon (talk) 11:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Millie (short story) up for deletion[edit]

Important author, Katherine Mansfield, particularly of short stories. Lots of sources at Google books. Referencing needs improvement. Only pretended compliance with WP:Before. Nominator says this is "a test case." 7&6=thirteen () 21:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

New Zealand regional/professional orchestras[edit]

I've created an Orchestra Wellington article stub, to go with Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra, Christchurch Symphony Orchestra, and Auckland Symphony Orchestra. There's also a need to create one for Dunedin Symphony Orchestra (formerly Southern Sinfonia) which I'm also working on. Does anyone know more about the history of Orchestra Wellington? — Jon (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

We could make this a research project at the next Wellington Meetup? Quilt Phase (talk) 05:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Excellent idea! - Jon (talk) 06:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Use of copy-edit template[edit]

I've had an interesting experience, adding {{copy-edit}} to the Villa Maria Estates article a couple of weeks ago. As you can see in the history, apart from a couple of genuine contributions, it just attracted a bunch of spam and vandalism from mostly first-time accounts. Has anyone else found this? — Jon (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Jon. There's obviously WP:COI editing going on by various WP:SPAs, generally with low edit counts that haven't reached autopatrolled status yet. I've thus semi-protected the article to keep the rogues out and done a bit of a clean up. Schwede66 22:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Stuff, Fairfax, and Nine Entertainment[edit]

Well. Stuff (company),, Fairfax Media and Nine Entertainment all say conflicting things about who owns a bunch of our daily newspapers. As far as I can figure out, Fairfax bought Independent Newspapers in 2003, managed to fend off Gina Rinehart trying to turn it into Pravda, only to be swallowed by Nine Entertainment in December 2018. Somewhere in that merger, Nine apparently sold (or intends to sell?) off the NZ Fairfax division (now renamed Stuff Limited). Does anyone know the current state of affairs? If so, please feel free to fix the various inconsistent statements in these articles, or comment here...! Cheers - Jon (talk) 06:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I have made a start by editing the 2 Stuff articles. Nurg (talk) 10:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

New Zealand wine article peer review[edit]

Hi, please feel free to weigh in on a peer review of the New Zealand wine article. I've not done one before, so who knows what happens... Cheers — Jon (talk) 08:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The past is a foreign country[edit]

If I put an item in WP about an event in Invercargill which happened when Invercargill was a part of Otago and I describe the event as happening in Otago I'd be right, wouldn't I. When someone comes along a decade later (i.e. a decade after I wrote it in here) (and says to themselves what nonsense) and changes it to Southland may I revert their edit?

There are parts of the country which until recently were considered to belong to quite different regions. An enthusiastic editor is "modernising" them by changing the nominal locations. I want to revert them to the (for me) the familiar almost centuries-old place name. Do we have a ruling on this? Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

If you make sure that the context specifies what you are talking about, then it's always important to be historically correct. This is stock-standard for Wikipedia. For example, the initial four Māori electorates will never get a macron because at the time they existed, macrons weren't used. That is, it's (for example) Southern Maori and not Southern Māori. That the city of Whanganui is spelled with an 'h' is a recent thing and in the pre-'h' context, you'd write "Wanganui". Schwede66 07:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
The appropriate way to write the article is "[Someevent] in [Someplace] in 18xx in Otago (now in Southland)..."-gadfium 07:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks both. Eddaido (talk) 09:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
It is very common throughout Wikipedia, and the wider world, for editors to be anachronistic, to confuse time periods and to place current measures over a period when such measures were not used. The example you use, putting a town in the wrong region, is one of the simplest to identify but there are countless others. You see this a lot in movies, where characters wear out of period dress; speak with out of period words; or express out of period moral values. I suggest that if being historically correct is likely to cause justified confusion then you should add an aside to clarify, but keep this to a minimum. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion about 'Category:Mayors of places in Auckland Region'[edit]

The link to the discussion about 'Category:Mayors of places in Auckland Region' is broken. Nurg (talk) 10:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

blog posts[edit]

Over the last couple of days I've posted a series of professionally-edited blog posts related to my involvement in Stuartyeates (talk) 10:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Stuart, I enjoyed reading those posts.-gadfium 18:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. Excellent posts. Keep up the good work. Season's greetings to you all. Schwede66 22:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Good on you for doing this; nice to see more coverage of how people are working to fix the gender bias, and it's something I can point journalists to when they ask what's going on in NZ Wikipedia.. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 22:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
These are very interesting articles - thanks also from me. Nick-D (talk) 05:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I didn't know that the subject of a biography on WP can have it removed on request. A process for this is described at Is this a WP policy? Nurg (talk) 08:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
If a person with marginal notability requests that an article about them be removed, we will generally follow their wish. I'm not sure this is written down anywhere, other than WP:BLPKIND, but such an article will go through the {{Prod}} process without anyone disagreeing, or have people !voting in an AfD explicitly as "Delete because the subject does not want an article". See also WP:AUTOPROB.-gadfium 17:27, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
I see. So if someone who was clearly notable asked for their article to be deleted, the request would be declined, I presume. Nurg (talk) 07:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
That is my understanding.-gadfium 07:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Christmas traditions[edit]

I have split Christmas in New Zealand out of Christmas in Australia and New Zealand (and will do the same to Christmas in Australia shortly). Someone from New Zealand might like to look over the result and correct any glaring errors please. I apologise if I have inadvertently caused offence (although I suspect no more than the combined article would have). Merry Christmas. --Scott Davis Talk 08:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Should the last paragraph of Observance of Christmas by country#New Zealand be added? it seems to have material not otherwise in the detail article. --Scott Davis Talk 09:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
I have deleted that paragraph of uncited info. Nurg (talk) 08:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Does that mean that the rest of Christmas in New Zealand is near enough for now? --Scott Davis Talk 11:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Category:People by city or town in New Zealand[edit]

Where do we categorise people from New Zealand who do not identify with a "city or town" in New Zealand. There's lots of space there. See discussion about Brian Lochore. Eddaido (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Paora: Why do subjects, in this case an innocent surveyor named Holmes Miller, lose their locality, in this case South Canterbury? Is this the urbanising of New Zealand? Have I missed a discussion somewhere? Please tell me. Eddaido (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
@Eddaido: Not sure what you mean about losing his locality. He's from Waimate, the article says he's from Waimate, and he's in Category:People from Waimate. No locality lost there! If you're asking, why did I removed the (sub-)province "South Canterbury" following Waimate, then the reason is that in New Zealand the construction of place, province, country is seldom if ever used, as most places (with a very few exceptions) are unambiguous. Paora (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
That individual may have been a poor selection by me.

My concern is for people who do not identify with any particular " city or town in New Zealand" and in fact strongly resist that pigeon-holing preferring to be "from" (the countryside). Is a precise place of birth a life-time label? What if it is not borne / worn with pride? How do we handle those born at sea? - or in an aircraft.

What does "from" mean (in WP WPNZ) when we talk about or write about a person? Is there —somewhere amongst the many discussions— one where we have agreed that it is the place of birth? (as I understand you believe it should be). Is the UK PM "from" New York? Eddaido (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:People born at sea. Paora (talk) 08:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
This discussion begs the question of whether we really want/need these categories Category:People from 'town/city' at all - for New Zealand towns/cities, at least. I'm not convinced that we need them. Ross Finlayson (talk) 08:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Edward Lewis (minister) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Edward Lewis (minister) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Lewis (minister) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Theprussian (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion has ended. The article is being kept. Nurg (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Second-biggest city[edit]

Spotted this being discussed on Twitter by User:Comingupcharlienz (lovely user name, mate!), so went to see what had been changed. Here's the edit summary for Christchurch having a higher population than Wellington:

Corrected the claim that Wellington was larger than Christchurch, which was based on the outdated NZSAC92 standard, which was replaced in 2018. Under the modern standard, used by government agency Statistics NZ, Christchurch is significantly larger than Wellington by population. See this page:

Now I haven't got to the bottom of where it subsequently states metro population data. But if the standard for how this is measured has changed, and Christchurch is now "bigger" than Wellington, surely we must reflect that here? Gadfium, I'm not sure that it needs a big discussion around that. You said in your revert:

The figures we're using here show Wellington to have a larger urban population. To change the claim, we would need to use the 2018 figures in all articles on NZ urban centres. Please propose that change at WP:NZWNB)

I would have thought that we don't immediately have to update all of Template:NZ population data to 2018 data, but if there are key aspects wrong, and there's a reliable source for it being wrong, we could instead ditch the template in that case, provide a source manually, and show what the true story is. How does that sound?

That said, I see that there is also Template:NZ population data 2018. So are the data already available? Lcmortensen, I see that you maintain the underlying data, and that (as per "Table 3A = Main urban areas") Wellington (418,500) appears to have a larger population than Christchurch (404,500). Could you shed some light on that, please? Schwede66 03:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:NZ population data continues to use the older NZSAC92 standard, while Template:NZ population data 2018 uses the newer SSGA18 standard. A new template was required for SSGA18, at least in the interim, since many of the urban area names and boundaries are not backwards-compatible with NZSAC92. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 03:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
If we update Christchurch to use {{NZ population data 2018}}, but don't update Wellington, then we are comparing unlike figures, so at the very least, we need to update both, and it would seem sensible to go through the links to the old template and replace any use which doesn't appear historical. We also need to eyeball each article for comparisons which might no longer be accurate. List of cities in New Zealand should also be updated. Urban areas of New Zealand already has both 2018 and the older standard, but perhaps we should put the 2018 standard first. List of New Zealand urban areas by population has both figures side by side. I'm happy to go through and do these changes, if I get feedback that my plan is sane.-gadfium 04:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Urban areas can't cross territorial authority boundaries in SSGA18, whereas they can in NZSAC92. The "Wellington" in 2018 refers to only the Wellington City Council part of the metro area, whereas the "Wellington" in 1992 includes Porirua, Lower Hutt and Upper Hutt.
For comparison, you can see the maps of the boundaries here: 1992 2018
Also, I've moved {{NZ population data}} to {{NZ population data 1992}} with a redirect, so we know which version is which. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 06:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Gadfium, what you say makes sense. I never thought of updating just the Christchurch article and not the Wellington one. But we might as well do the whole lot and it's good to see that both template sets are up to date. Good work all round! Schwede66 09:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I've amended the Christchurch article to say it can be regarded as the second- or third-largest, linking to List of New Zealand urban areas by population because that shows both figures, and including an explanation in a footnote. Later today, I'll start changing most uses of {{NZ population data 1992}} to {{NZ population data 2018}} unless I hear an objection.-gadfium 17:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Glad to see this is in capable hands; thank you, folks, for speedily sorting this out as soon as a journalist mentioned on Twitter it was an issue. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I start going through the links to {{NZ population data}}, and in the first dozen entries, all seemed to be reasonable uses of the template, either because the boundaries hadn't changed (e.g. for Districts and Regions - and I checked that Auckland and Marlborough, which have changed boundaries since 1992, were correct) or because using urban areas rather than the territorial areas seemed appropriate. I also spot-checked several other links. It seems other editor have already done the work required. I'll go back to the Christchurch and Wellington articles and try to get a better wording about their rankings.-gadfium 03:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by the current wording - "The urban area is home to 404,500 residents,[2] making it New Zealand's third-most populous urban area behind Auckland and Wellington, and the territorial authority has 377,200 people[3] which makes it the second most populous city, as Wellington city is less populous despite having a larger urban population". Under SSGA18, the former Wellington urban area was split into two major urban areas (called Wellington and Lower Hutt) and two large urban areas (called Porirua and Upper Hutt). The new Christchurch urban area is now much more populated than the new Wellington urban area. Their respective populations are correctly listed on this page The wording above seems to arbitrarily merge the four Wellington urban areas together, incorrectly claiming them as one. I would suggest it be changed back to what it was earlier, clarifying that Christchurch is larger under the modern Stats NZ standard, but Wellington was once deemed larger. (Apologies if I'm doing this incorrectly, I'm new to this). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comingupcharlienz (talkcontribs) 07:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the wording you quoted is confusing. Perhaps the way to make it less confusing is to distinguish between greater Wellington (which includes the Hutt Valley, and Porirua), and Wellington city proper. E.g.
"The urban area is home to 404,500 residents,[2] making it New Zealand's third-most populous urban area behind Auckland and greater Wellington. The territorial authority has 377,200 people[3] which makes it the second most populous city, as Wellington city is less populous than Christchurch city, despite Wellington having a larger urban population in its greater metropolitan area". Ross Finlayson (talk) 07:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
There is a major urban area around Wellington, which includes Hutt Valley and Porirua, which the 1992 standard recognises (with boundaries updated to 2017), but the 2018 standard doesn't extend beyond territory limits. There is also an urban area extending beyond Christchurch City's territorial limits, including Rolleston and Lincoln, but that urban area has less populaton than Wellington's, even though Christchurch city has more people than Wellington city. The articles do not perhaps do a very good job of distinguishing between city limits and urban limits, but the Wellington article is dealing with the urban area, with a separate article on Wellington City Council for the territorial body, while Christchurch deals with both the territorial body and the urban area. I would be happy with Ross Finlayson's wording, except that the term "greater Wellington" (against my expectations) usually refers to the Wellington District rather than the Wellington urban area. Metropolitan area might be an appropriate synonym for urban area.-gadfium 08:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree it would be more accurate to say "greater Wellington" is more populated than "greater Christchurch", but as far as I'm aware, neither term is formally used by Stats NZ - they're social constructs. And I don't quite understand why the 1992 standard has any relevance, considering it was explicitly replaced by the 2018 standard, which has specifically defined "urban areas" that are unrelated to political boundaries, which are what territories are.If you're going to cite a standard as authoritative, it should surely be the current one, not the one it replaced. The simplest solution to me is to simply note that Christchurch is the second-largest urban area, and Wellington is the third-largest urban area, as that is what is recognised by the government authority. If a caveat is required, you could say Wellington is larger if you include Lower Hutt, Upper Hutt, and Porirua, though I don't know why that would be necessary, given they are cities in their own right. I don't see why it needs to be more complicated than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comingupcharlienz (talkcontribs) 22:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that some 'caveat' is needed, because most New Zealanders would consider 'Wellington' to be the country's second-largest 'city' - thinking of 'Wellington' as meaning 'greater Wellington' (or 'the Wellington metropolitan area'; choose your favourite wording), and 'city' as meaning 'urban area'. Yes, "greater Wellington" and "greater Christchurch" are 'social constructs'; that's precisely the point here. Simply stating that "Christchurch is the second-largest urban area" - without some caveat - would be a mistake, because this would (at first glance) appear, to most NZers, to be an error. Ross Finlayson (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Whether people would think it was an error or not seems both speculative and not particularly relevant - it is objectively true that Christchurch is a more populated urban area than the Wellington urban area. I have still not seen any justification for why the population of 'Wellington City' should also include the populations of three other cities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comingupcharlienz (talkcontribs) 23:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I too would like to see a definition of "Wellington" the city that includes the Hutt and Porirua, and a definition of "greater Wellington", both with references please. And especially one for "greater Christchurch", whatever that supposedly includes: Rangiora? Kaiapoi? Rolleston? Lincoln? Appealing to what "most New Zealanders" think is not enough, since "most New Zealanders" may not think of Dunedin as smaller than Lower Hutt (or even Tauranga). An opinion poll where people rank the size of NZ cities would be interesting, but it shouldn't determine the content of Wikipedia. --Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
In case it's not already obvious (to people who took the time to carefully read what I wrote), my comment about taking into account what "most New Zealanders would consider" was merely in reference to whether or not it's a good idea to add a 'caveat' to the fact ('objective truth') that Christchurch City is more populous than Wellington City. If you choose not to add such a caveat, then I don't really care. It won't be me who'll be frequently reverting edits by people who mistakenly think that it's wrong. Ross Finlayson (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Map of the Wellington Urban Area

I think the article Wellington, which currently covers four cities (the 1992 standard), probably needs to be rewritten to the 2018 standard, which is mostly the same as the 1992 standard called the Wellington Zone. It includes a little less than half of the Wellington City area, excluding its rural areas. A new article on the Wellington Urban Area can deal with the urban part of the four cities, and might be quite short, similar to Hamilton Urban Area. Alternatively, rename the current article to Wellington Urban Area, removing material which is really about the capital city, and create a new article for the 2018 standard. The article on Christchurch similarly is dealing with the area in the 1992 standard, but this differs less from the 2018 standard. It currently covers areas to the north and south of the 2018-defined urban area. In the 2018 standard, those areas to the north and south are combined with Banks Peninsula as "Other rural Christchurch City", so perhaps they are not really urban. I don't think the article on Christchurch needs a major rewrite as much as the Wellington one does. Articles on other urban areas will probably also need work, but this is much more extensive than I was envisaging when I said I would update articles to use the 2018 standard. In the meantime, I suggest the rewriting of the lead at Christchurch to use only the 2018 template, as follows:

"The urban area is home to 377,200 residents,[1] and the territorial authority has 385,500 people[1] which makes it the second-most populous city after Auckland"

and the infobox figures including the area should be adjusted to match. This is a change in my position. I welcome alternatives.-gadfium 03:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to get up to speed with these two standards. There's a couple of related comments made above that I don't yet follow. Lcmortensen said, "Urban areas can't cross territorial authority boundaries in SSGA18", and gadfium said, "the 2018 standard doesn't extend beyond territory limits". What are these statements based on? I am having trouble reconciling them with "Urban boundaries are independent of local government and other administrative boundaries, that is, an urban area may be contained within one or more local government region or administrative areas." (Statistical standard for geographic areas 2018, p. 15.) Nurg (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I have got a couple of things wrong above. The 2018 standard seems much more reluctant to extend urban areas across territorial limits, but there seem to be some examples where it does. I have trouble finding out what the boundaries are for each area. The maps linked to by Lcmortenen are very useful, but while for example I can see the Hamilton area, I can't see the Hamilton City area, which has slightly less population. What's the difference between them? Secondly, I mentioned the Christchurch urban area as including Rolleston and Lincoln, but even the 1992 standard does not include those towns. The comparison of urban population between Christchurch and Wellington may well be different if we include such satellite towns. I've come to the conclusion that giving the 2018 figure for urban area and not making comparisons with other urban areas is the safest way to proceed.-gadfium 17:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
gadfium, go to Stats NZ geographic boundary viewer. Toggle the 'Urban Rural' layer to see the urban areas. Expand with the right-arrow head to get earlier years. Nurg (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Oops. I forgot to mention that the region and TA data is the 2019 update on the 2018 data, which uses a new method for calculating migration. The urban area data still uses the original 2018 data with old-method migration, since the update is not yet available. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 08:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ a b "Subnational Population Estimates: At 30 June 2019". Statistics New Zealand. 22 October 2019. Retrieved 11 January 2020.

According to the methodology for the 2018 standard, the only urban area that crosses territorial boundaries is Richmond near Nelson. Stats NZ has a digital map showing the boundaries for each urban rural area under the 2018 standard It does not include the population for each, unfortunately, but that can be obtained elsewhere using the respective urban area codes. As an aside, a journalist colleague of mine has been corresponding with Stats NZ on this issue, which has provided 2019 population estimates for both 'greater Wellington'and 'greater Christchurch', which shows the latter to have a larger population. This means regardless of which metric you use - the legal city boundaries, the statistical urban area boundaries, or the social 'greater' city boundaries - Christchurch is the more populated city. But it is perhaps safer to stick with the urban rural boundaries, as a consistent standard across the country. Comingupcharlienz (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

That's interesting to see; thanks for doing this work. Based on the (to me) surprising result that the population of 'greater Christchurch' is also higher than that of 'greater Wellington' (assuming that it's generally understood that the latter doesn't include the Kapiti Coast), I withdraw my earlier comment that there should be some 'caveat' added when stating this result. Thanks again for helping make Wikipedia correspond to on-the-ground reality! Ross Finlayson (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Right then, we have a further reliable source in this article. Or do we not? Is does the author of those lines possibly have a conflict of interest? Just kidding; it's a great write-up of this situation.

Anyway, on a more serious note. The demographics section of the Christchurch article needs updating and it should also give more context, e.g. the change in standard used by StatsNZ. I'm working on a bio at the moment but when I'm done and this hasn't been fixed yet, I shall give it a go myself. Once that's done, we can possibly more concisely summarise the population situation than what's currently there. And once Christchurch is 'fixed', the content can be copied to the Wellington article and adjusted accordingly. Schwede66 06:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

For background, here is a 2012 article from Stats NZ busting the myth that Before the 2011/12 earthquakes, Christchurch had overtaken Wellington to become New Zealand’s second largest city. Nurg (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
In the first instance, I have edited List of cities in New Zealand. I thought it wise to include the population data for both standards, hence there are now two tables, with text explaining where the difference comes from. See whether that works for you. The 2018 population data table contains an additional five "large urban areas" and my choice of photos could possibly be improved upon. Schwede66 20:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Links to DAB pages[edit]

I have collected two articles with New Zealand- or Polynesia-related links to DAB pages where expert help would be welcome. Search for "disam" in read mode and for"{d" in edit mode; and if you solve either of these puzzles, remove the {{dn}} tag and post {{done}} here.

Thanks in advance, Narky Blert (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Māori Land Court  Done. Nurg (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Tiki mugs  Done. Nurg (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)