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: 09:37 23 March 2019 NZST (refresh)
Universal time and date: 21:37 22 March 2019 UTC (refresh)
Did you knowArticles for deletionProposed deletionsCategories for discussion
(3 more...)
Templates for discussionFeatured article candidatesA-Class reviewGood article nomineesGood topic candidatesRequests for commentsRequested moves
Notice: Since November 2014 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand has redirected to this page. Archives for the page can be found below.

Contents

Archives[edit]


A little extra[edit]

I just found this discussion via The Signpost, so adding a subsection for newcomers with additional perspectives.

My initial instinct was "remove exception for place names in Guideline, it doesn't hurt to use macrons in article titles". But there are some excellent points made by both sides above, and now I'm on the fence. However, I'd like to draw a parallel that points in the opposite direction to my first feeling.

Consider terms from other languages that are normally written in non-roman scripts. To create a reversible transcription from Arabic or Indic scripts requires diacritics to distinguish sounds that we don't have in English, like retroflex-t versus "normal"-t. And it doesn't help most readers to mentally pronounce a word when the Arabic letter sheen / šīn is transcribed as 'š' or 's' rather than 'sh'. Thankfully Māori doesn't have such shenanigans: it's written in latin script and the consonants seem to have well-accepted mapping to letters that sound the same (or close enough?) in English.

But Arabic language does have one thing in common with Maori: it distinguishes long and short vowels. There are three different methods to indicate this in roman type: different letters (u/o and e/i), letter doubling (a vs. aa), or diacritics (a vs. ā or á). At least with Māori there seems to be a clear preference for the macron and we don't have to deal with alternate spellings like *Maaori.

There was some discussion a while ago about where to use "simplified" Arabic transcription (no diacritics and no distinction between 'alif and 'ayn) versus "strict" transcription which maps to the spelling in Arabic script. (I'll see if I can find a link to that discussion later.) One of the big considerations was that a page full of heavily-accented terms was hard on the eye. So it was decided to provide the strict transliteration on first use, then use the simplified but less accurate spelling in subsequent body text.

Tellingly, the simplified, no-diacritics version is also used for page titles that are Arabic words.

Now, the guideline might have changed since then, and recommendations on WP seem to be honored more in the breach than the observance (curly quotes, anyone?). Plus, people (because of personal or media preference for a certain spelling variant) and places (because of a common non-accented spelling already in English) aren't generally affected. But still, that is one instance where the community chose to minimize the use of diacritics.

Yours from across the pond, Pelagic (talk) 07:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
[Admission: I'm a monoglot, I don't speak Arabic or Maori, just have an interest in typography and writing systems.]

I note that Maori was recorded and written by a Cambridge professor of Arabic, Samuel Lee. Unfortunately Australians had no equivalent. Eddaido (talk) 07:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Wow, an interesting correspondence, Eddaido. The numerous native Australian languages would have been to much for any one linguist, and sadly the window of opportunity has closed in many cases. I imagine there is a lot of work that could still be done here, though. Pelagic (talk) 13:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your construictive post. I wonder though if your arguments address my concern fully. At some point a foreign word used in English becomes so commonly used that it effectively becomes an English word. At that point all the rules about how the word is written or pronounced in that foreign language become irrelevant. For example, how is Tel Aviv written and pronounced in English? Simple - just as you or I spell or speak it. Or Cologne? Answer - Cologne. The debate here is about whether our place names are written or spoken in the Maori language, or in English (through years of using them as English words). With there being a huge effort in the last 30 or so years to promote all things Maori, including making it an official language, the debate and distinction has been heavily confused with the insertion of legislation, political correctness and lobby group involvement. I do not want that to sound dismissive of what has been happening in NZ societ, but I think it is correct, and does not appear to be addressed by your contribution. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Thankyou for the feedback, Roger. In an attempt to add something fresh, I was specifically avoiding those concerns, which have already been discussed at great length above. I just wanted to relate a case where we were dealing with clearly foreign terms – there wasn't any question of whether they are Anglicized – and the choice was still to avoid diacritics on repeated use. I'm not saying that we must do the same for Maori, as the macrons aren't nearly as hard on the eye as heavily-pointed Arabic or Sanscrit.
But come to think of it, for Maori terms in general, not just place-names: if the diacritics are used, then shouldn't the term be italicised as foreign? As a comparison, we would (should?) set "Cologne" in roman/upright type and "Köln" in italic/oblique type. Okay, that's a place, but think also of loan words like "rôle" and "métier", against "role" and "metier". Or "Christchurch" versus "Ōtautahi": keep the diacritics, but also use italics!
I note Utunga's point that the current guideline would have us write "Otautahi" without the macron, as there is no specific provision for places with official dual names. That, at least, should be rectified.
Aloha and kokua have entered common English use in Hawaii (at least in tourist areas) and are often printed there without italics (or so it seemed to me on a very brief visit), but elsewhere in the world they would be italicised. For New Zealand to recognise te reo Māori as a second official language is admirable, but the language doesn't have the same special status in other countries. Sorry to digress from the main topic; this has probably been hashed out before elsewhere.
Pelagic (talk) 13:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
@Pelagic, it is useful to get an outside opinion about this subject: local debate has a habit of being insular and missing the wider picture. Any further comments you might want to make would be welcome. Reading your latest post above, it does seem that we might be thinking along the same lines about Maori terms used in English. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Italics for Maori words[edit]

[this is still in reply to Pelagic above: sub-heading was inserted later as noted below Pelagic (talk) 06:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)]
It's important to note that the convention in New Zealand English is to not italicise commonly-used Māori loanwords. And increasingly, as you can see below, the use of macrons for those NZ English words is standard in media, universities, government, law etc (I'm compiling a list of official style guides that all recommend macrons); it's a misrepresentation to say this widespread, rapid, and recent usage change is just "political correctness and lobby group involvement". Wikipedia pages on NZ subjects should be explicitly noted as being in NZ English as per MOS:TIES, and they'll follow NZ conventions, including no italics. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2018 (UTCDo you hve anything to confirm that statement about italics?
Do you have anything to confirm that statement alleging a convention about italics? Perhaps the words are not put in italics because they are English words, not Maori loan words? The use of macrons by govt bodies, and certain others, is because the law tells them to do it (promote all things Maori). It is the NZ version of positive discrimination. I referred to this somewhere above. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I think you're mistaken. First, a loanword like "Māori" IS an English word, in this case NZ English, by definition – that's what loanword means. Please read the actual definition. Café is a French loanword, iwi is a Māori loanword. As such, it's not italicised, because it's an English word, not a foreign term. You can confirm this by opening any NZ magazine, newspaper, book, and pamphlet for the last 150 years. Other common loanwords that aren't italicised in current NZ English are mahi, kaupapa, marae, kiwi… I could go on. A simple Google search will find all the evidence you need. Second, I'm pretty sure the law does not tell governmental bodies to use macrons: please find me the legislation that specifically states that. And it certainly hasn't told the NZ Herald and North and South magazine to do it. The use of macrons on Māori loanwords in NZ English is a recent, widespread societal change in usage, and even if it were some sort of massive "positive discrimination" campaign organised somehow by persons unknown, so what? It's a change in common usage and should be reflected in Wikipedia. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, I do know what a loanword is. (Use of italics has no grammatical rule regarding foreign words - it is simply a handy technique for clarity) Loan words usually become anglicised over time. At that point they cease to be loanwords. If that were not the case half of English would be made up of foreign loan words. At that point the English language rules take over, not the foreign language rules. The place we drink coffee in is today an English word (with a foreign origin, like thousands of other words). As such it does not need an accent. If an accent is used, as it sometimes is, it is for another reason, such as trying to promote a business, similar to painting the French tricolour on the entrance door. Two hundred years ago the word is likely still to have been a loanword and so an accent would have been used, and the lack of an accent could have been called 'incorrect'. The issue here is whether all these Maori words have become anglicised (in which case the addition of macrons means we are swapping an English word for a foreign loanword). The word would still be an English word but its type would have been artificially changed - from an word a 100% anglicised word of foreign origin to a foreign loan word. The law says , as I paraphrased, that govt bodies need to promote Maori things. Using macrons is one way to do this. I dealt with this further back and haven't got time now to dig it up again. In fact, NZ Geographic Names has specifically said (again I summarise) that macrons are not obligatory - meaning the English language spelling has not changed. What the Herald does is up to it and is determined by business rationale, nothing else. Finally, once again, my point is that all these so-called Maori loan words are not needed because English has words of its own that mean exactly the same. Why write Māori (loan word) when Maori (anglicised word) will do, unless there is an anterior motive? Your reference to common usage is one of merit, but for me is a topic for another post. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I would just note that "café" and "naïve" are two of the very few words that have kept their diacritics long after becoming naturalized into English. This is because normal English phonology would see "cafe" pronounced as /keif/ and "naive" pronounced /naiv/ like "knive". Even those two are often seen without diacritics these days, but in publications with quality typography I think it would still be more common to keep them. Pelagic (talk) 10:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
That's not exactly correct. They have not kept their diacritics in published works. café vs. cafe, naïve vs. naive. The entries from what I can see of The New Zealand Oxford Dictionary do not contain diacritics: cafe, naive and Maori. I would imagine that they may comment within that entry about the use of diacritics as being optional...maybe someone with access or a hard copy could expound on that.
As an observation, there seems to be a slight trend from 2000-2008 towards the use of diacritics with those spellings, Cafe, Naive but not using macrons with Maori. 2008 is the latest year for which results are currently available.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
If its still of interest I have access to The New Zealand Oxford Dictionary but both print and online versions are dated 2005. Do you have a specific question? Eddaido (talk) 11:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the Ngrams, Berean Hunter, they're not what I expected! I've seen "café" and "naïve" used as examples in style guides and books about usage, so it surprises me that Google's corpus says differently.
My experience (not recent nor extensive) with OCR tuned for English-language texts is that it will often either ignore diacritics or fail to recognise accented letters completely. I was wondering if this skews the Google Books results? But they don't have any problems with e-acute in French-corpus café.
The long-term graphs for Maori and Paekakariki are unsurprisingly without diacritics.
Pelagic (talk) 10:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
The comparison of Māori and Maaori is interesting. Nurg (talk) 10:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Ngram results from the Google Books corpus for diacritics are very suspect. See the discussion on 13 Sept 2013 on the éclair Talk page – worrying, because it looks like a lot of change proposals have been relying on ngram data. An unknown amount of scanned material seems to be transcribed as unaccented, which you can check by manually following Google book links: I did, and sure enough quickly found results where "Māori" was counted as "Maori". So I don't think those results can be used to support the arguments people have been making. Plus of course, all results from 2005 (the date of the NZ Oxford Dictionary) and ngram (which only goes up to 2008) are also irrelevant because they predate the widespread shift in macron usage that started about 2015. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, all! I've taken the liberty of inserting a subhead for the discussion of italics and have refactored the indentation. I hope nobody minds. Outdenting my own reply here as it mostly addresses Giantflightlessbirds top post (though does mention some of the others).
My initial thoughts were to follow the direction New Zealand is heading in: macrons and no italics. But as I read the lengthy arguments above and formulated my own responses, I found my position changing.
The talk of "use NZ English because ties" is important enough that I will split off another subhead below to address that separately.
But here's another thought about italics and language tagging. NZ law may say "that govt bodies need to promote Maori things". But doesn't it do more honour to te reo Māori (the Maori language) to mark it as such, rather than agglomerating it into a New-Zealand-English admixture? [Before anybody objects, I know that youse know what "te reo Māori" means, I was just making an example of how I would gloss it on first occurrence if I were writing in a more international part of the wiki.]
Visually, we mark a phrase as foreign with italics per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC.
Note that I'm definitely not advocating for italic article titles. It bad enough that we have to resort to magic words for literary works, etc. Let's not impose that on every Maori, Arabic, or whatever-language article title.
Somebody (maybe Utunga) pointed out far above that diacritics help with things like text-to-speech. What helps even more with TTS and machine recognition is tagging relevant parts with <span xml:lang="mi">, say by using {{lang|mi|...}} or {{lang-mi}}. That is the other half of 'marking' the word or phrase, and is also recommended by the Manual of Style.
Admittedly, there is also an aesthetic factor to consider. Oblique or italic is one of the least intrusive typographic niceties, but a page of text heavily peppered with it can still look unattractive. For often-repeated terms do we have an option to dial back on this? With those words that are common enough in English, we can drop the italics and the macrons after first mention in a section. If it's frequent enough for the italics to be distracting, then the macrons will also be distracting. Unfortunately that approach brings us back to arguing about which words are sufficiently naturalized for that treatment and which ones are truly foreign.
As GFB points out, this isn't necessarily about righting great wrongs by either promoting Maori terms and orthography, or by pushing back against Political Correctness, though these do seem to be big considerations for some. So maybe my use of the phrase "do ... honour to ... Maori" will raise some hackles, but that's not the sense I intended. More that we show respect for our readers and subject matter in the care with which we present the material. Which is why everybody is here arguing over the "best" way to do that.
Cheers - Pelagic (talk) 10:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I really can't follow the reasoning behind the argument that an article written in NZ English should not follow the conventions of NZ English. Articles in other versions of English are free to do what they like by tagging Māori as a foreign language. Māori words in common use in New Zealand English are never italicised. "Doing honour to Maori [sic]" by treating common NZ words like a foreign language based on their Māori origin is actually going to offend quite a few New Zealanders. For an example of NZ English usage, see this article from the Listener, NZ's highest-circulation current affairs magazine. Note use of macrons – now standard with most media – and no italics. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 00:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I have tried to weed out the clutter and work out what is the nub of this disagreement. The best I can do is that there are two sides: one, those that think Maori words in NZ English are loan words, and are therefore being mis-spelt without macrons; and two, those that think Maori words have been absorbed as anglicised NZ English words, and are therefore spelt correctly without macrons. If true, this approach is useful because, among other things, it renders the media use of macrons irrelevant, with one important exception. If macrons are consistently used, correctly of not, they will be the usual spelling in reliable sources, thus making macron use correct. In my view, the weight of evidence points to the fact that words such as Maori and Kaikoura are NZ English anglised words, not Maori loan words, rendering the use of macrons incorrect. Others disagree of course. If hthese two views are indeed that exact points of difference, we can hopefully continue this discussion with a clearer focus, something that has been sorely lacking so far. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
That was my impression, too, Roger 8 Roger. Hence my suggestion that the dichotomy (of English/Maori, naturalized/borrowed) should partake of the italics vs. no-italics distinction as well as of the diacritics vs. no-diacritics one. But Giantflightlessbirds seems to be arguing that there is a third language called "New Zealand English" at play here, which follows different rules and is exempt from Wikipedia's house style. Pelagic (talk) 12:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm referring to New Zealand English, one of the many varieties of English recognised in the MOS. Perhaps check out Māori influence on New Zealand English for italic and macron use.—Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
This [1] is an interesting article about the adoption of loanwords. If the recent flood of macron use did begin around 2015 then what happened to recentism? Should we not be careful in case macrons, used in English language writing, soon become seen as a temporary fad? Some might say that the plethora of macronised words in WP articles and govt documents is awkward on the eye of an English language reader (where macrons form no part of the learned alphabet), and that before too long they will be dropped as quickly as they were adopted. Personally, I would be wary of calling NZ English a distinct language: it is a variant of English, one of very many. The official language of NZ is English, not NZ English. It is also very far removed (eg Dutch-Afrikaans) from becoming anything like a language separate from standard 'Queen's English'. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
If anybody is interested, I have just proposed the merging of Māori influence on New Zealand English into the New Zealand English article. Go to the Māori influence on New Zealand English talk page to comment. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
... but not for proper names?[edit]

I missed seeing this guidance before. I would normally write Köln or Deutsche Bundespost with italics, but MOS says "a proper name is usually not italicized when it is used, but it may be italicized when the name itself is being referred to, for example, in the lead when the foreign name is included in parenthesis after the English name".
Sigh. Pelagic (talk) 10:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Media outlets using macrons[edit]

Interesting to note that in the last few weeks, the weather on oneNews on TVNZ has started using macrons in their spellings of placenames including Whakatāne, Whangārei, Taupō and Kaikōura, and the New Zealand Herald is also using macrons routinely in placenames such as Taupō [2], Whangārei [3], Paekākāriki and Kāpiti [4]Paora (talk) 10:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

PS. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think all the outlets are using macrons for all words of Māori origin, including where they have been adopted as English words. Nurg (talk) 12:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it's reached Dunedin - https://www.odt.co.nz/entertainment/music/expressing-meaning-matariki NealeFamily (talk) 01:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
The ODT does use macrons sometimes, e.g. [5]. Paora (talk) 01:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Just looking at the article dates - maybe they have changed their editorial policy NealeFamily (talk) 09:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Though in that particular article, the only macron I see there is the one in "Māori". (IMHO, that's the only appropriate use of macrons in English text - when naming things (another example being iwi like "Ngāti Whātua") that are specifically Maori; not things whose names just happen to have come from the Maori language.) Ross Finlayson (talk) 09:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
I think the word used here, "Māori", is a proper noun, the name of the political party, and as such is a genuine loanword that can use a macron. It is not the same as when the English, non-loanword, word 'Maori', is used in English text. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

More on macrons in Māori placenames[edit]

An IP from the University of Waikato has gone through Tirau and Tokoroa adding macrons to most of the Māori placenames. As none of these have a macron in their English wiki articles there seems no justification for this I have reverted them. Apart from anything else AFAIK it is standard practise to link to a wiki article as per its title, and if in this case if it does not have macrons then the link should be to the standard English name. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@DerbyCountyinNZ: In contrast, the Hawaii MOS specifically recommends piped links with diacritics. Not saying that's either good or bad, but that there is a lack of consistency between different wikiprojects arising from the localised way we approach consensus. Pelagic (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

New Zealand English and the international audience[edit]

It's bad enough that we have to deal with rules around some articles being in US English and others in British/Commonwealth English (WP:ENGVAR). The differences in spelling and lexis are numerous, and there is a long history in print publishing of separate editions for the two markets. Plus, in disagreements between USA and the rest of the world, US editors often prevail (feet and inches? one "panini" two "paninis"?). As a pragmatic matter, we just have to live with that split as best we can.

But to insist on separate rules for other regional varieties of English is a disservice to both our readers and editors. For readers, foreign and regional terms can be laid so thick that it's like wading through jargon. Editors have to negotiate extra layers of local rules, and deal with additional opportunities for conflict.

For example, in an India-related article, seeing a quantity given as "3.76 crore", without an international equivalent or a wikilink, will make most readers from outside India ask themselves "how much is that?" Of course it could be better written as "3.76 crore (37.6 million)". But, apart from quotations, why even use lakh and crore? Is it nationalistic pride, or an effort to make Indian readers feel more comfortable in their corner of Wikipedia, or just the natural idiom of the original author? If another editor came along and "improved" it, would they be slapped down because the article is tagged for en-IN and "that's how we write here"?

Yes, MOS:TIES exists, and thank-you Giantflightlessbirds for pointing us to that. I believe that by listing all the regional varieties there, it gives the wrong impression that editors and projects should emphasise the regional differences. But note it also says that "Commonwealth English" is "largely indistinguishable from British in encyclopedic writing". And if you scroll up to Opportunities for commonality, you see "using vocabulary common to all varieties of English is preferable". [But most of our current debate is about orthographic and typographic conventions rather than vocabulary, see following.]

Sure, we're not talking here about colour versus color, tap versus faucet, or even jandals versus thongs (!). We started with Paekakariki as {{lang|en|Paekakariki}}, {{lang|mi|Paekākāriki}} or {{lang|en-NZ|Paekākāriki}}. And with a question of whether place names should be an exception to a general rule. But other issues have arisen. Does MOS:TIES trump MOS:FOREIGNITALICS and other stuff? Do we follow recent trends in New Zealand publishing (journalism or more widespread?) to diverge from international use, or take a more conservative approach?

[Thanks, Roger 8 Roger for raising the recentism aspect, above. Also pinging Utunga, Rsfinlayson, Berean Hunter, DerbyCountyinNZ, NealeFamily, Nurg, Eddaido. That's not everyone, but please do add extra pings if desired.]

Pelagic (talk) 03:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Taitā[edit]

The debate is continuing on a move request - Talk:Taitā, New Zealand#Requested move 2 October 2018 for those interested. NealeFamily (talk) 01:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

No it's not. On that page I've thrown up my hands and walked away :-) Ross Finlayson (talk) 02:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Is Peter Thiel a New Zealander?[edit]

Hello, there's a discussion on Talk:Peter Thiel regarding whether his citizenship causes him to fit the requirements of categories such as Category:New Zealand people. Your input is welcome. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

New Zealand Wikipedian-at-Large[edit]

The Wikimedia Foundation approved my project grant, so from July 2018–June 2019 I'll be New Zealand's first Wikipedian at Large. Thank you to everyone who left endorsements or volunteered to help! I think that was instrumental in getting full financial support for the year. I've blogged about the project here.

It looks like over winter I'll be based in Auckland with a short stint in Dunedin, and over summer 2018–19 in Wellington, after that heading to the South Island. I'll be organising meetups and Wikipedia events associated with each residency, and will be calling on local Wikipedians to take part and help out new editors – there will be social events, Wikipedia training, and edit-a-thons. I'll also be working with host institutions to provide some freebies for local Wikipedians, such as behind-the-scenes tours, to say thank you for helping out.

Looking forward to meeting as many of you as I can as I travel around New Zealand over the next year! — Mike Dickison / Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Wonderful!-gadfium 04:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Saw your note on Twitter earlier today. Awesome. Looking forward to catching up when you are in Christchurch. Schwede66 05:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Terrific! I'll be interested to hear more in due course about an activity that you listed under Auckland Museum: "Organising a panel and discussion with Māori and Wikipedians on the future of Māori-language Wikipedia, and the Māori content on English-language Wikipedia." Nurg (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Mike just made a quick presentation about his plans at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFjo8wg4wKw (first presenter). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Northcote by-election[edit]

At 8:30 pm, Stuff was claiming that the votes wouldn't be counted till 10:00 pm. Meanwhile, the Herald said that with 75 percent of the votes counted, the other candidate had conceded. That's not an official result, but for some editors a newspaper claim is sufficient and they stampede to be the first to update articles with the news. I'm reminded of the US election of 1948, when one newspaper declared a candidate the winner and had to publish a correction the next day. Akld guy (talk) 09:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Back at the 2017 general election, some editors declared safe seat results before the votes had been fully counted. However, that was slightly different in that it was clear that the opponents had a snowball's chance in hell of actually winning - 75 percent counted in a near-bellwether is probably a bit too early IMHO. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 10:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

John Key article[edit]

John Key, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Hazhk (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

New Zealand wine[edit]

Hi folks, I've been beavering away on and off for the last few months trying to improve New Zealand wine articles, in particular the main New Zealand wine article. Right now I'm trying to unravel the issues surrounding the various articles about Pernod Ricard-owned wineries, and even about Pernod Ricard itself, which bought Allied Domecq NZ to become Pernod Ricard NZ, but merged with Pernod Ricard Pacific (Australia), formerly Premium Wine Brands, to form Pernod Ricard Winemakers, which had earlier bought Montana Wines, now rebranded to Brancott Estate, except the domestic wines you see in NZ supermarkets (ostensibly because of domestic brand recognition, yet ironically some of them aren't even made from New Zealand grapes), which had in turn at some point bought Corbans Wines, but then sold it again to Lion (formerly Lion Nathan, and who also now make "Corbans" labelled wine with grapes from Australia and Chile), along with Lindauer, yet the Corbans Wines article still redirects to Pernod Ricard NZ when they were merged ten years ago. As you can see, it's complicated, and the articles are often very out of date and/or incorrect as a result. Any assistance would be appreciated... right now, please feel free to comment on the "Rework" section on Pernod Ricard NZ. Jon (talk) 09:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Just as a heads-up, there was some discussion at the last Wellington meetup of running a NZ wine editathon this summer at a winery in the Wairarapa. I'm sure many Wellington Wikipedians would be tempted to come out for the day! I'll post more to this noticeboard as the planning comes together. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
A meet up, you say; how do I get in on that? Being a Wellingtonian, and all... Jon (talk) 04:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
It'll be announced here, or you can join the Wikipedia New Zealand Facebook group or sign up to the mailing list, or keep an eye on WP:NZWPAL. All welcome! —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Red Feds[edit]

Hey everyone, does anyone have access to Erik Olssen's The Red Feds: Revolutionary Industrial Unionism and the New Zealand Federation of Labour, 1908-14? I'm working on the article on syndicalism and I was hoping someone could look something up for me. Thanks,--Carabinieri (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, some people have access to a copy. What do you want to be looked up? Nurg (talk) 23:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm interested in the following: My understanding is that the New Zealand Federation of Labour was formed in 1909 and was influenced by the American IWW. I'd just like to get a little more background on the founding and the IWW's influence. I'd also be interested in the Federation's relation to syndicalism in the European sense, if Olssen discusses this at all. If there is any kind of pertinent information on this, I'd like to add it to the article on syndicalism.--Carabinieri (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I have looked at the index and there are many, many pages that mention the IWW. There are no index entries for anything stating with syndic- or anarch-. I note that Olssen also wrote the potted history at https://teara.govt.nz/en/unions-and-employee-organisations/page-4 and says "The Red Feds, as they were known, were inspired by European syndicalists and American ‘Wobblies’ (Industrial Workers of the World)." So I guess the book probably discusses European syndicalists, but I don't know how to quickly find that info. Any names of people or organisation I could check the index for? I am happy to dip into it some more, but at this point I'm not offering to read the whole, or a substantial part, of the book! (I'm surprised to discover that there is extremely meagre coverage of the FOL in WP though.) Nurg (talk) 10:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your help.--Carabinieri (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Harmon Wilfred[edit]

The subject of this article about a "New Zealand-based businessman" is asking for assistance, if anyone is interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Question re David Willey (cricketer)[edit]

Why the article David Willey (cricketer) is under WikiProject New Zealand but not under WikiProject England as this cricketer is from England? Bayernfan2003 (talk) 12:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I've replied at Talk:David Willey (cricketer).-gadfium 22:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Women's Suffrage 125[edit]

This year is the 125th anniversary of Women's suffrage in New Zealand. On 19 September 1893, NZ became the first country to grant women the right to vote. There are many events planned this year to [commemorate this]. The anniversary is listed on the Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/September 19 page, but it hasn't made the list of the final five. What is needed to get it in the list for this year?

Is there anything else that should be done in Wikipedia for this anniversary? It appears that there is a Wikipedia article for each of the [125 extraordinary women] featured on the Our Wahine website. --Pakaraki (talk) 05:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Kate Sheppard is currently a featured article candidate. If it passes, I intend to nominate it for the front page of Wikipedia on 19 Sept.-gadfium 06:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Let me know what I can do to help. I'd love to organise some publicity for this, and perhaps an editing event to coincide with the "Are We There Yet" show currently on at Auckland Museum, which looks at the 125th anniversary. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm on holiday until the 22nd August, and will have limited internet access. I would appreciate it if some of the regular New Zealand editors could add Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kate Sheppard/archive1 to their watchlists, and if further comments on the article are made in that time, to attempt to address any concerns, or at least to assure the commenter that I have not abandoned the featured article process and will be back to continue the work.-gadfium 05:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Auckland Wikipedian meetup[edit]

The Auckland Museum library.

I'm hosting a meetup for Auckland Wikipedians this coming Saturday:

  • Saturday 21 July
  • 1:00 pm until we decide to head downstairs for a coffee
  • Library, Auckland Museum (lvl 2, take the South Entrance atrium elevator and head through the Secret World of Butterflies exhibit).

Meetup page: Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland 8. Please add your name if you can (or can't) come, and feel free to add items to the agenda.

Sorry this is short notice; I've only recently arrived in Auckland and wanted to meet locals. There will be several more meetups and editing events in the next couple of months, advertised here, on the Wikipedia New Zealand Facebook group, and on the mailing list for the NZ Wikipedian at Large project. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Auckland Museum wikiblitz[edit]

Collar from "Caesar", the bulldog mascot of "A" Company 4th Battalion N.Z.R.B. in WWI.

There will be an editing event for Auckland Wikipedians at Auckland Museum:

  • Saturday 18 August
  • 10:00 am to 4:00 pm
  • Library, Auckland Museum (lvl 2, take the South Entrance atrium elevator and head through the Secret World of Butterflies exhibit).

Meetup page: Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland/Wikiblitz_1. Please add your name if you can (or can't) come.

We'll be working with recently-uploaded CC BY photos of the Auckland Museum Land Vertebrates collection in Commons, and finding ways to use them in Wikipedia. There'll be training for beginners, so this is a great event for newcomers to Wikipedia. There'll be a photographer present from the New York Times (!) as well, although of course there's no requirements for people to be in the picture…

Look forward to seeing people there. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 01:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Great work with arranging for the New York Times to cover this! Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

A link to a DAB page[edit]

Tākitimu links to the DAB page Wairoa River, Can any expert help solve this puzzle, which was first noticed in May 2016? Narky Blert (talk) 09:12, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Anything to do with Te Wairoa (iwi)? Eddaido (talk) 09:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
It's fixed now. Nurg (talk) 08:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Someone with politics experience please check my uploads from today's rally at parliament please?[edit]

I was on the NZEI Te Riu Roa rally today at Parliament grounds. I've uploaded some photos here. Could someone with a non-passing interest in politics cast their eye other them and check my identifications of people? I'm planning on using these in a rewrite of New Zealand Educational Institute. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, some excellent current images for commons. Should MP Chris Hipkins be Chris Hipkins MP? Two ways of looking at it I suppose. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Typo fix: in each description, change stike to strike. Akld guy (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, working on the article now. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia lunch in Dunedin, Friday 5th[edit]

As a follow-up to a public talk on Wikipedia at Otago Museum, I'm hosting a lunchtime meetup of local Wikipedians and any potential editors at the Museum cafe, 12:00, Friday 5th. Would be nice to meet Dunedin editors! @Grutness:Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll try to get there! Grutness...wha? 08:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Derek Handley article edits[edit]

I work with Derek Handley and there have been several edits made to his page from an anonymous IP address on 29 Aug in a way that is designed to misrepresent him.

I would appreciate if an experienced Wikipedian could step in take a look and try and rework the page into something neutral and representative as it is currently not exhibiting a neutral point of view. It would be really great if this page could be organised into proper sections and be made more encyclopaedic. Further, his name was removed from The B Team page on 15 July 2016 and its would be great to undo this edit.

I want to step back due to conflict of interest - I have previously made edits 2.5yrs ago, and haven't touched Handley's page since. I really appreciate all the volunteer work you do to make Wikipedia a useful tool. Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julikanz (talkcontribs) 20:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The writer is referring to the Derek Handley article. Akld guy (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
@Julikanz: Your concerns may have been addressed by this edit today. Akld guy (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
It looks like some good work has been happening on the Derek Handley article in the last few days, especially from Ballofstring. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I've done a bit of c/e on this. Hopefully someone interested enough in Handley can tidy up the list of awards. —Hugh (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

In or On the main islands?[edit]

A wee debate has begun on my talk page that is better handled here, triggered by my change on the Auckland article of 'in the NI' to 'on the NI'. It has been suggested that we in NZ say in, unlike other English speaking countries that say on. This surprises me and made me wonder if I am continuous mis-hearing people, which I doubt. I ran a quick google search and found the use split roughly 50-50. I then looked at some of the websites using 'on' and found them to be pretty good quality - The Press, government sites, CCC, etc. I wonder if there is any form of NI-SI divide in usage? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I was surprised to hear the claim of "roughly 50-50" use. In NZ at least, people almost universally say "in the North (or South) Island", not "on the North (or South) Island", and certainly not "on North (or South) Island". Earlier today, I added a paragraph to New Zealand English#Usage to note/explain this, and also did my own search (within Wikipedia only). I did find some pages (mostly pages about native flora or fauna, apparently written by non-New Zealanders) that used "on", and I changed them (as minor edits). Ross Finlayson (talk) 02:51, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
(BTW, this is analogous to how people say "in Great Britain" rather than "on Great Britain", even though Great Britain is an island.) Ross Finlayson (talk) 02:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
----
It's certainly my experience that people in NZ say "in" not "on" the main islands. It goes with using "the" for the North Island and the South Island. I'm not sure about a sentence fragment like "in/on New Zealand's North Island"; "in the North Island of New Zealand" seems more natural to me (as Akld guy fixed in Auckland this morning).-gadfium 03:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply, Ross. I will check further. I think the GB comparison though is not the best. 'In Great Britain' is used when referring (usually incorrectly) to one sovereign state or country. When the use is specifically of the island, in a geographical sense, 'on' would be used. In NZ we do not have any form of using NI and SI as separate political entities so the reference we make is of the geographical island, and why I have always used 'on' and heard it used by other kiwis.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, one rare case where you could conceivably argue in favour of "on" is when the North (or South) Island is being referred to specifically in geographic terms - i.e., as a 'piece of land' rather than as 'a place'. For example, the page for Coromandel Peninsula begins: "The Coromandel Peninsula on the North Island of New Zealand extends...". When I was changing "on" to "in" on a few pages earlier today, I decided to leave that one alone (even though, personally, I probably would use "in" even in that case). Ross Finlayson (talk) 03:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
And also, how do we then explain the very many online examples of quality NZ websites using 'on the SI'?Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't know. What pages are you referring to? Ross Finlayson (talk) 03:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Also the number of British people who are completely clear on exactly which bit is "Great Britain" and whether it's a political or geographical entity is not all that high, so I don't think one can infer much from that either way. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Brits tend to say "in the British Isles" rather than "on", though. Sorry, late to this party... —Jon (talk) 08:25, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Here are some examples, after googling "on the south island" of of exclusively NZ websites. Tiera = [6] tvnz = [7] radio nz = [8] Lincoln uni work [9] nz immigation law advice = [10]

Aha. Actually, two of these are not really "on the South Island", but "on the South Island's West Coast" - which is something different. In this case, the object being referred to is not "the South Island", but "the West Coast". Everyone always says "on the West Coast". And the "Te Ara" page is also different. It says "Attacks on the South Island", meaning not 'attacks that occur on/in the South Island', but 'attacks against the South Island'. Again, something different. The other two links - the TVNZ and 'Immigration Law Advice' web pages - really do say/mean "on the South Island". That's unusual, but in a way perhaps they're 'the exception that proves the rule'. Ross Finlayson (talk) 06:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
My mistake about the first three, and I am frustrated with myself because I checked several other sites first for that exact potential problem. I obviously overlooked those ones. Whatever, of the five given, we have a 60-40 split, which is close to the around 50-50 I said. Google searching is risking for the very reason you have given, namely 'on the SI' must be taken in context. However, the same applies to 'in the SI' I will try to remember this every time I read, say or hear the islands mentioned from now on, and specifically analyse what and in what context in or on where used. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Interesting discussion. I think it is mostly "in" but that in certain contexts "on" is used instead of, or as well as, "in". The "on" usages are for some (but not all) geographic features. For example, I had a look at WP references to Ruapehu. On the Ruapehu dab page it has "highest mountain in the North Island". In the Mount Ruapehu intro it has "highest point on the North Island". Both these sound fine to me. Likewise the Coromandel Peninsula example could be either (I think). However, this doesn't apply to cities. "Auckland is a city on the North Island" would sound a little odd – not greatly so, but a little. Re the tvnz reference given earlier, "Out west on the South Island" sounds normal; it is a 'big geography' usage, like Ruapehu or Coromandel. As for the nz immigation law reference, it uses "in the South Island" 8 times (10 times when the comments are included) and "on the South Island" once. Overall, I think "in" usages are far more common, but "on" is used in certain ways. I'd be very interested if people can define more clearly when "on" is used. Nurg (talk) 10:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Question re Draft:Maori Indians[edit]

Came across a draftspace page that pertains to New Zealand, but as a Canadian who's by no means an expert in New Zealand topics I don't know what to do with it.

It's Draft:Maori Indians. My question is, is this really a recognized and established thing, or is it somebody just trying to turn the fact that some Maori/Indian mixed marriages happen to exist into a thing? (My uncertainty isn't eased by the fact that the editor who created it has a username that identifies them as an American rather than a New Zealander, either.)

Ideally, it would be nice if an AFC-experienced Kiwi could take on approving or rejecting it, instead of leaving it in the hands of a canucklehead — but either way, some input would be helpful as it's been sitting in the draft queue since July and we need a major carpet-bombing of the 3,400+ backlog. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 05:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject New Zealand tags[edit]

The monthly report WikiProject New Zealand/Popular pages is dominated by articles on royalty and wars that New Zealand was one of many countries to fight in. I have boldly removed the New Zealand WikiProject tag from the articles of the most highly ranked royals, and propose to do so from the war articles, plus a few others such as Mount Everest and Antarctica. I suspect these tags were placed by a bot run many years ago which tagged all articles with New Zealand-related categories. I do not intend to remove tags from Monarchy of New Zealand, Gallipoli Campaign and similar which are of specific interest to New Zealand editors. If anyone thinks the tags I removed serve a useful purpose on these articles, they are welcome to revert my edits.-gadfium 21:16, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

You have my support. I have long been irritated by such articles appearing at User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/New Zealand. Now ... oh, wait, I have just checked the 3 queen articles and they are still in that table. How come they weren't removed in today's update? Nurg (talk) 08:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I've now removed the tag from several articles on wars, also from Mount Everest and Antarctica. It takes some time for the servers to process these changes. The list of Top Class Featured Articles relevant to NZ no longer includes the Queen.-gadfium 19:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Good work. I'd put articles like Saamy on the hitlist too. Nurg (talk) 08:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Good point; just being shot in part in New Zealand (like Mission Impossible: Fallout) doesn't automatically make a film of interest to WikiProject NZ. I've removed the tag from Saamy. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 09:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to merge West Otago into Otago[edit]

I think West Otago should be merged into Otago since it only describes "the local name given to part of the region of Otago" and not much more, therefore the content is better suited in the parent article in some form. Thoughts?—Mythdon (talkcontribs) 01:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

My preference would be to expand the article and add some references. Grutness, what do you reckon? Schwede66 05:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
This is the first time I've ever heard the phrase "West Otago". Is it in common use? ("Central Otago", yes; "West Otago", not so much.) If not, then my preference would be to delete the page entirely (as it's currently almost empty). Ross Finlayson (talk) 02:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I thought about AFDing it, but thought I'd suggest a merge first in the spirit of WP:BEFORE. But if the page can be expanded enough to where it's no longer a stub (with reliable sources of course), then Schwede66's suggestion may be the best way to go. Otherwise, it should either be merged or deleted.—Mythdon (talkcontribs) 02:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Hannah Playhouse / Downstage Theatre[edit]

Would anyone (particularly any Wellingtonians or patrons) like to comment on Talk:Downstage Theatre? Any help/experience appreciated :-) Jon (talk) 06:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Voluntary student unionism[edit]

Re: Voluntary student unionism. A properly sourced and well-written section on the VSM version in New Zealand would be good. The article needs some serious sourcing and attention anyway - at the moment it looks like a debate between the Young Greens and the Young Conservatives.

Peer review for New Zealand and Australian Division[edit]

G'day all, I have nominated the New Zealand and Australian Division article for a peer review. I would be most thankful for any feedback if anyone has a moment to take a look. The review can be found here: Wikipedia:Peer review/New Zealand and Australian Division/archive1 Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 05:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC[edit]

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

New Zealand academics[edit]

Information to help improve New Zealand academics articles:

Enjoy! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit-a-thon for 125th anniversary of first women's-suffrage election[edit]

We're running another Edit For Equity edit-a-thon, for the 125th anniversary of the first suffrage election. The topic is "NZ Women in History". Meetup page here. The last four Edit for Equity workshops had good turnouts, recruiting 4–12 new editors each time, and we're hoping to run more events like this over summer in Wellington.

  • Wed 28th Nov, 5:00–9:00 pm
  • Internet NZ, Level 11, 80 Boulcott St
  • Free: register at Edit for Equity

Because User:Ambrosia10 won't be there, it would be great to some other experienced Wikipedians along to help the newbies. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Macrons[edit]

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. "en.wikipedia.org" is the English-language Wikipedia; "fi.wikipedia.org" is the Finnish-language Wikipedia; and "mi.wikipedia.org" is the Te Reo Wikipedia. Another thing to keep in mind is that "en.wikipedia.org" 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 "en.wikipedia.org" 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 "en.wikipedia.org") 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,[11]. 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[12] 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: [13], [14] (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)

Reference indent to Macron discussion[edit]

References

  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. ...like 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". nzhistory.govt.nz. Retrieved 2018-12-17.
  10. ^ NZ On Screen. "The Governor - The Reverend Traitor (Episode One) | Television | NZ On Screen". www.nzonscreen.com. Retrieved 2018-12-17. ...flag-pole chopping Hōne Heke

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: [15]

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 http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/ ; (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 site:nzetc.victoria.ac.nz 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. 119.224.77.162 (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." (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashleigh_Young&action=edit&redlink=1) 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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fifi_Colston&action=edit&redlink=1) 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)

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 http://www.heritage.org.nz/the-list are quite well structured I think. Regards, Podzemnik (talk) 11:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Podzemnik, I remember using an Excel file (http://www.heritage.org.nz/the-list, "Export the full List") from the heritage website, then using some website converter (like https://tools.wmflabs.org/excel2wiki/) 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)

Putiki[edit]

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)

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)

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)