Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 2

Template:Infobox NZ school

I created an infobox for NZ schools. So far I have only added it to the Wellington High School page. I may get round to adding it to other school pages soon. Maybe I have committed a sin of omission or commission with the design of the box, so please improve it if you can. Neil Leslie 10:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed New Zealand Wikimedia chapter

Head over to the Wikimedia New Zealand page on Meta if you're interested in helping out with forming a New Zealand chapter of Wikimedia.

Six o'clock swill

Six o'clock swill is the current Wikipedia:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight effort. As I believe the phenomenon applied in NZ too, some of those from across the Tasman might be interested in adding some balance and additional perspectives. Regards--A Y Arktos 00:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedians by alma mater

There are now separate categories for editors who are graduates from NZ universities to add yourself to them, follow the instructions at whichever subcategory of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: New Zealand you belong to! Grutness...wha? 00:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Wellington Suburb Vandalism

It looks like some people are inserting junk information in some of the Wellington suburb articles. Many of the edits are from newish accounts rather than IPs. See Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Wellington_urban_districts . Some of the edits are fairly subtle and it would be good if people who know the area could check and keep an eye on things. - SimonLyall 09:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

User Thehenderson seems to be causing some of the grief. I notice he's onto a "last warning before banning" for his vandalism efforts so far. Will keep an eye on my neck of the woods (southern suburbs). (If only it was so easy to revert the actual vandalism (tagging) going on in the southern 'burbs at the moment!) --noizyboy 22:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Schools pages

Having created an infobox, I have now added it to all the NZ Schools pages. I have also taken the opportunity to edit them (sometimes mercilessly). Please take a look at those that you know well and see if you can improve them. I tried to correct claims which were incorrect, or which contradicted a claim elsewhere. I also tidied up text where I could. A fair few of the pages claimed that the current school was NZ's best academically, or described the school as leading or prestigious or well known for X, without giving any evidence. In many cases I deleted such peacock terms. If there was an external reference, or a verifiable number I left it (e.g. "School X is famous for its superb chess team" would go but "Players from School X's chess team have won the NZ championship for the last ten years in a row" would stay). I'm sure I pruned too much away, but part of the idea of pruning is to allow fresh growth, so please add information where appropriate. Where pages contained large amounts of text just copied verbatim from the school's own web site I just deleted it, mostly because of copyright, partly because it is advertising. I also cleared up pages giving details of purely local interest, like timetabling, which subject is taught in which building, and so on.

I took data mostly from the TKI website. Enrollment figures given there are FTE, I think, so this may not accord with data from other sources.

I made no attempt to upload school badges. If you can please do this.

Pages where I have not been able to give clear information include Kelston Boys' High School and Christ's College, Canterbury. The page for Cambridge High School needs work.

Some misc comment:

• most of these pages are very dull
• very few school seem to have Māori names, and few had their motto in Māori (Latin seemed to predominate)
• upper decile schols are over represented on wikipedia. Is the education of the rich more interesting?
• my current vote for most interesting school in NZ goes to Van Asch College

Next I will try to improve the New Zealand Secondary Schools page, with which several people have expressed dissatisfaction. Neil Leslie 11:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Collaboration of the fortnight/month

Many countries have such a collaboration; I participated a little in the Australian one which ended recently on Six o'clock swill since that affected New Zealand as well and we were invited over to that article. The Aussie one suggests the aim is to progress the article towards becoming a featured article, but we don't appear to have any contributors in New Zealand who have much experience of going through the featured article process, apart from Evil Monkey who's focussing on space related articles. I suggest we set a more modest goal of simply improving an article substantially.

Please see my rant at Talk:Helen Clark#Controversies. That article is currently a fairly average one for New Zealand; but it has room to become so much better.

I was also thinking a couple of days ago, when I wrote Gay rights in New Zealand (solely so I could hang a new story onto it) that it would be nice to get a few others involved with such an article; although I appreciate that that topic may be too controversial for some. Lack of experience in the subject matter isn't actually a problem. I'm not gay, but I can do research.

I've also had an extensive correspondence with User:Giano recently about the Holy Trinity Cathedral, Auckland, which he's rewriting from scratch in his user space. I find that collaboration very rewarding (although he's been doing all the work).

So I'd appreciate some feedback on whether we should try a formal New Zealand-related collaboration, or if we should try a less formal process, where someone asks here for attention for a given article. It may be that Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand is the more appropriate place; at the moment that appears to overlap with this page.-gadfium 19:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Well New Zealand literature could use some attention from any enthusiastic bookworms out there! Papeschr 22:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

similarly, the large number of redlinks at List of New Zealand feature films makes sad reading... Grutness...wha? 05:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Politics of New Zealand

Can people begin to add the template {{Template:Politics of New Zealand}} to relevant pages? cheers. --LeftyG 03:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

www.wikipedia.org.nz

Someone has registered this domain, but doesn't appear to be doing much with it. May I suggest we contact them with a view to creating a New Zealand Wikipedia portal like www.wikipedia.be or www.wikipedia.ch? GeorgeStepanek\^talk 20:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

George, it looks like the company that owns it (1st domains) is cybersquatting and will probably want $$$ for it. Wiki can show bad faith in that it's an obvious attempt to imitate them plus show prior usage and as wiki is a "famous" trademark (these are all the agruments scientology used on me over scienTOMogy - however as my site is a parody their claims were unfounded) wiki will have no problems getting this guy to hand it over. Glen Stollery 11:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

You may want to withdraw he potentially defamatory statement above. 1st Domains is the REGISTRAR, NOT the REGISTRANT of the domain, and under New Zealand's first-come-first-served domain rules, 1st domains has done noting improper. Also, the disputes policy of domainz.net linked to below is no longer valid. Domainz ceased being the monopoly operator of the NZ registry 4 yars ago. The Domain Name Commissioner is now the person with oversight, although a formal disputes policy is still being developed and (when ratified) will likely not apply to this case which preexisted it.dramatic 11:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC) (BTW I am employed by a domain registrar - (Not 1st Domzins Ltd))

Oops sorry thanks for clarifying. Make that "BWEB Development Ltd" my apologies. Regardless of the domain disputes policy this is a simple trademark issue and although it looks like neither "wikiwi" nor wikipedia have trademarked the name in NZ wikipedia could easily show bad faith as wikiwi have what looks to be an almost identical product and have bought the domain with the obvious intention of confusing the consumer. Wikipedia would win under first usage laws regardless of not technically registering the trademark yet (someone tell Jimmy to get onto that will ya?!). It's called "passing off" and it's simple trademark law. And please... "defamatory"??? You've been watching too many American movies for crying out loud this is New Zealand. Glen Stollery 21:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well it's not how I feel about it but what 1st domains think of your statement :-). You say its a simple trademark case but then that the trademark is not registered here, which makes it harder to win. I think we'd have a hard job proving "passing off". The site looks like wikipedia because it runs on mediawiki - sofware which wikimedia writes and freely licenses so that others can use it, including for commercial gain. The site uses a different name and logo from wikipedia. All that it is missing is a disclaimer that it is not part of wikipedia/wikimedia. BWEB development may have purchased the domains with the primary aim of selling them to wikimedia foundation for profit, but they are not following the "usual" techniques used by cybersquatters (e.g. putting up a porn site). Lastly, I'm not sure of the wisdom of your creating a user page on the wiwkiwi wiki - isn't that open to interpretation as an endorsement?dramatic 03:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"dramatic" please argue in subjects in which you are knowledgeable; You're obviously a smart guy but please... it may make it "harder" but as Wikipedia is a famous trademark and they are obviously trying to pass themselves off as wikiwi (as you stated no disclaimer and even then they are WIKIWI not WIKIPEDIA) so why do they need the domain name? Yu argument that they are non-profit is redundant as neither is Wikipedia and they still have a "donations" button so people may be donating to them under the false impression they are donating to Wikipedia. Finally, I fail to see what relevance my having a user page there has relevance at all in this matter (I can just see the judge "Sorry Jimmy your application to have this domain revoked from wikiwi is hereby denied due to Glen Stollery having a user page there. Motion dismissed.") If anything this illustrates your incredible lack of knowledge of trademark law in this country, whereby I have had 3 trademark infringement threats against me (all have been dropped), one $300,000 lawsuit, one US$100,000 threat from the Church of Scientology (see ScienTOMogy), successful had two domain squatters relinquish the domains back to me, and a NZ high court injunction taken against myself and my company, and have never once lost. What positive outcome do you attempt to achieve from your posts anyway? They make no constructive suggestions, just bate and negate any made by others. I see where your nick came from - very apt. Now if you have nothing positive to add why pipe down and let users like myself and George actually try to remedy this issue okay? Glen Stollery ^{(My contributions)} 05:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm contributing in an area which is my job and I posted to correct misinformation. I can't get more directly involved as this involves a rival registrar. I did not say that wikipedia.org.nz was operating as a non-profit organisation (how can we know that) - I said that they are not exhibiting the behaviour typical of someone who is retaining a domain name primarily to force a trademark owner to buy it back at a high price. dramatic 11:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Legally challenging the wikipedia.org.nz domain ownership
If you would like any assistance in drafting the letter or challenging the owner of this domain then I have a lot of experience from my lawsuit with Scientology over scienTOMogy and I would be happy to help. It's a cut and dried case and no lawyers need be involved (see this site for NZ domain dispute resolution info. Just contact me from my user page. Glen Stollery 12:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you Glen for finding out who registered the domain. Your experience may well become extremely valuable if we have to formally challenge the domain registration. However, it may not have to come to that: a simple request could be all that we need. I've started a letter at User:GeorgeStepanek/wikipedia.co.nz letter; please feel free to help phrase it. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 20:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

There is also an http://en.wikipedia.org.nz/ (with a en. prefix) which is not a wiki at all.--Konstable 10:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The presence of that page is conclusive that they're trying to make use of our good name, and they do not merely have a misapprehension that wikipedia is the name for a wiki.-gadfium 21:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly gadfium that's exactly my point see my reply to Mr "dramatic" above. Now, George, shallwe get onto this letter? Glen Stollery ^{(My contributions)} 05:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

At this stage I'd rather to leave it up to mav and the foundation's legal people, so I'd prefer not to comment further. I'm just happy that we've reached the right people, and that they're on to it already. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 06:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice :) Glen Stollery ^{(My contributions)} 06:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It appears to be now redirecting to the New Zealand Portal, can you comfirm? Brian | (Talk) 10:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I can confirm - that makes it harder to show that they have any malicious or pecuniary intent against Wikimedia Foundation, doesn't it :-) dramatic 11:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but there may be other, even better reasons, such as a contract? I hope its resolved to the best for all parties, at the moment it appears to be. I think we can learn a lot from this discussion, such as how not to behave here (lol) some of that was quite provocative and inflammatory, and while I dont think it counts much for free stuff, maybe hurt pride, but where it involves law and people paying money, I think we need to be very careful indeed.moza 04:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Featured portals

Now that Portal:Australia has become a featured portal, I asked User:Cyberjunkie what it might take for the NZ portal to follow suit. Please see the conversation at User talk:Cyberjunkie, and feel free to comment here.-gadfium 05:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I have now nominated the New Zealand Portal as a candidate featured portal. The discussion page is at Featured portal candidates.-gadfium 19:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ahmed Zaoui article

The Ahmed Zaoui article has NPOV and disputed tags on it, and is undergoing a major rewrite to become more critical. I think it might benefit from having many eyes on it as at present there's just two of us looking for a compromise position.

Portal:Oceania

I've put down some thoughts about this proposed portal at Portal talk:Oceania. Please come and comment.-gadfium 05:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

MetService Article

Hey all, my boss has just added an article on MetService to wikipedia. We're both employees of the aforementioned company, so would appreciate any input into ensuring the article is NPOV, and any help in further wikifying the entry. Cheers. --noizyboy 02:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks admirably NPOV from the once-over I gave it - thanks for contributing this article, it looks like it will be a valuable addition to the encyclopedia! Ziggurat 00:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Article assessment

Wikipedia:Article assessment is a weekly process where articles are submitted for informal rating on a given topic. The first topic, just closed, was "Natural disasters". I've submitted Napier earthquake after expanding it a bit. My entry was late, so I hope it does get considered. You can see the entries at Wikipedia:Article assessment/Natural disasters, and as I understand it, anyone can contribute to the rating process.

Next week's topic is "extinct mammals". New Zealand is going to be a bit challenged¹ having an entry there, unless someone wants to write an article on New Zealand Greater Short-tailed Bat (Mystacinidae robusta), which is our only extinct mammal that I know of. If only they'd made it "extinct birds".-gadfium 22:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

¹: There isn't supposed to be any nationalistic competition in this assessment, I'm just trying to be funny.

Maori userbox

Those interested in userboxes may like to know that there is now a {{User Maori}} which can be added to userpages. Grutness...wha? 01:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Maori main page revamp

It's time for another (or your first) look at mi:, folks, since our "mi-3" sysop got going.

But there's a display problem with the sister projects logos floating about in the printable version - anyone familiar with such things, please see the main page discussion. Robin Patterson 21:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Years in NZ pages

I'm thinking of creating 2005 in New Zealand types pages for all to 20xx and 19xx in the next day or two. If people have suggestions on format and the like could they please comment, it'll be easier now than fater they are created. This is part prompted by the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tui award winners 1965 discussion saying there is no year article to even put music information for that year in. Oh if anyone has a nice bot it would be appreciated. - SimonLyall 23:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I have done a bit of a draft at User:SimonLyall/test if people want to have a look and comment. Sections have been changed slightly from we have now and I've craeted a tonne of links in each section for places to get information. The actual year numbers will be expanded on creation. Probably I'll do things 10 years at a time and remove sections (like TV programmes) so they don't have to be removed from all of 1900-1950 etc. Perhaps the sources list could go in the talk page after the first round of tidy up after creation. - SimonLyall 04:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay I am in the process of adding in years now, each year I am adding needs a bit of work to tidy it up. To see which ones I've added have a look at Category:Years in New Zealand and it is any years up to and including 2002. I'll do a few more tonight and then some tomorrow. I am trying to optimise my timing :) - SimonLyall 10:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Almost did it. 1968 in New Zealand was 999,995 article and 1969 in New Zealand was 1,000,008 th. - SimonLyall 23:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Lol!! and I thought i was th eonly one playin..moza 03:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I notice that you're adding these years to category:xxxx by country - currently similar articles are in the category for the year instead (Category:1950 in Australia is in Category:1950, for example). Are these going to be standardized? (also, bad luck missing out on the one millionth :) Ziggurat 23:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

category:xxxx by country is a only exists for a few years so far, see Category:Years_by_country. I am expecting these to be all created soonish so created the articles in anticipation of that. - SimonLyall 23:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see. Well, it seems that whether these will be created or not is uncertain - see Category talk:Years by country - and probably should be discussed one way or the other. I'll go ask there... Ziggurat 00:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Māori category, Māori listings

Hi people. I’ve been redirecting the pages in Category:Maori to Category:Māori but could do with a hand.

Wow, prompt work, thanks guys! Barefootguru 07:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I just got the one in Category:Maori art; there probably weren't as many other categories affected as I originally thought. Gene Nygaard 08:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Gene Nygaard has some advice on indexing categories with macrons.

There’s also two identical (yes, identical, not redirects) lists I’ve discovered at List of Maoris and List of Maori. I think both should read ʻList of Māori peopleʻ, but do we even need them with the above category? Looking for a few thoughts before adding a merge or delete tag. Barefootguru 18:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I would say it's a clear move for one of the lists to your suggested title, and a clear redirect for the other one to the same page. The list should probably remain at present, as it groups the information differently to the existing category (by activity, that is) as per WP:CLS, and could potentially have redlinks added too. Ziggurat 20:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Not only is the redirected category problem a mess in need of attention, but some of your articles are also needlessly hiding their information from search engine searches by not including the spelling without the macron as well, within the text of the articles (indexing sort keys, not being something visible on the page, are usually ignored by search engines, so they have little affect on that situation). I don't understand why you'd want to do that, so I'm assuming you must just be unaware of the fact that that can happpen. Gene Nygaard 07:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Courtenay Quarter , Courtenay Place and Te Aro

Can someone from Wellington (or with a good knowledge of the central) have a look at these pages and perhaps merge them togeather or something? There seems to be a huge overlap between them. They could also probably use some cats. - SimonLyall 07:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

My idea would be get rid of Courtney Quarter. That is just the Wellington City Council being, well, stupid. Courtney Place is an important street/area, and Te Aro is a suburb (that has become inner city). Anyone with other ideas? --Midnighttonight 07:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

This Wellingtonian's never heard of Courtenay Quarter, but there's a stack of hits on Google… Barefootguru 07:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Have a look around town, the city council has put up things for the "Lambton Quarter", "Willis Quarter", "Cuba Quarter" and "Courtney Quarter". NOBODY actually uses these names, or has any idea about what they refer to (outside of the obvious fact that they are Lambton Quay, Willis St, Cuba St/Cuba Mall, and Courtney Place that is). It is Wellington City Council being, well, <insert defamatory statement here>. --Midnighttonight 08:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd lose the Courtenay Quarter article and add the info about the WCC "quarter" names into the main wellington article. Courtenay Quarter can always be used as a redirect to that. The other two articles are fine - main street and real name of inner city suburb (mind you, I'm in Dunedin, so what do I know about that strange northern city? :) Grutness...wha? 09:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is it picked on because it's a tourism community of common interest? Courtenay Quarter is probably the highest ranking tourism destination by DOLLAR value in the country, whats wrong with seeking knowledge from the official source? I clearly referenced the sources... The label is in common usage worldwide, but understandably is meaningless to locals, unless of course you make your living from it. I am just asking for caution, patience, due diligence, and perhaps i'll dig it up as i get around the circuit. Its OFFICIAL on the local AUTHORITY maps, isnt that enough in itself? we re not discussing an airstrip here guys, come on. ( I was privy to the web map traffic for a two year period, 2 yrs ago, it was phenomenal) Its also the smallest 'official area' containing many of the country's most precious things. Please state your objective measurements that enable you to decide this case. That should be the minimum expectation of any encyclopedia. Then we can have an informed and meaningful debate, and I believe that is the basis for being here. WCC pdf check out page two - measurement of targets for the Local Government controlled organisation reponsible for re-branding Wellington in award winning and more importantly financially succesful ways. Tough targets but they have delivered on previous occassions. moza 15:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought that I should point out that no i dont work for them, and I have zero commercial interest in the city. I also deeply resent the fact that the tourism plan calls for destruction of one of my most favorite places: Te Raekaihau Point. It will be a landscape lost for human time. The sea will come back and reclaim it. It is said that the CO2 from the fossil fuel used to transport the visitors to the site will damage the sea more than the lowered use by the visitors learning that it is doing just that. seems crazy to me. Lets use electricity from biofuel and wind. I have been saying this for more than 30 years. ref: http://www.electricity.net.nz/ moza 17:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Web Sites section on xxxx in New Zealand pages

I'm wondering if Internet might be a better heading for this section on all the year in NZ pages. Certainly prior to 1994, web sites doesn't make any sense.dramatic 08:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

yes, I thought about that after a made them all. Feel very free to change, lots of other stuff in the articles to tidy as well if people have time. - SimonLyall 08:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Wellington categories and articles

We need to get a policy here before it becomes a complete mess. As I understand it we have:

• Wellington City = Central city bit
• Wellington = Wellington City + Lower Hutt, Porirua, and Upper Hutt
• Wellington Region = Wellington (as above) + Kapiti Coast district + Wairarapa

However, things like Suburbs, buildings, streets and the like are arranged in different categories attached to the region, conurbation or city. Can we have a few thoughts on which way to go? Auckland has just about everything directly under Category:Auckland since the 4 cities inside it don't really have much to separate them. Should we do the same with Wellington or put things under Wellington city, Lower Hutt city? etc or the region? . Thoughts please, it's all getting a little messy. - SimonLyall 01:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Simon on looking at all the pages I agree, but I dont see any reason to deviate from the LINZ and Stats standard. I have left notes on each of those pages, I think we need a 'Greater Wellington' very short article explaining exactly what it is. The other articles should only contain info relevant to their durisdiction surely? when a new level article is created then the relevant material to that level would be shifted there, I would think. That way most duplication could be removed? ie Wellington Region would contain anything common to those 8 T/A's, and anything regional in Wellington City would rise up to the Region article, similarly Courtenay Place could lose high level info to Te Aro and Te Aro could lose lower level Courtenay Place info to CPlace. CQuater only needs minimal tourism info when it comes to hand. I'm advocating a strict heirarchy according to existing good GIS practice. (I do need to understand your application of the CAT: system next as well.) moza 17:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

No reason to follow Auckland!! Wn divisions are slightly clearer except the Wn/Porirua interface. I put things in the territories where they belong, or in both if overlap two, or in the region if more. Robin Patterson 03:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Correct, lets set the high standard by following the LINZ and Statistics New Zealand example, after all the Australian Government has just re-built their system of CCD's on our MB's, I know because they recently sent me a CD with evey digital meshblock in Australia! The CCD's (census collection districts) are digital boundaries that are called MB (meshblocks) in NZ. moza 15:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Official Areas. The official National boundary sets are built on a perfectly nested hierarchy system where each smaller boundary joins together in a group becoming the next larger one up. There are 5 tiers; Meshblock, Area Unit, Territorial Authority, Regional, National. The Quantities are approx 37828, 1773, 74, 16, 1. These areas are inviolate with location and naming.

Suburbs and Localities. There are collections of meshblocks made up into communities of common interest called suburbs or localities, but great care is needed, as they are not National official boundaries yet, but in fact are local 'official' boundaries, often in a state of change right now. Vanity addressing and council changes are bound to cause many difficulties in this space, with this level.

Wellington is one special case where there are three/four areas known with the same name, and sub-divisions based on a variation of names. So we have Wellington Region, Wellington City, Wellington Suburb;

• Wellington Region comprises 8 T/A's (territorial authorities); Masterton, Carterton, South Wairarapa and Kapiti Districts; Upper Hutt, Lower Hutt, Porirua and Wellington Cities.
• Wellington City comprises all suburbs south of Porirua, ie Tawa/Makara south on the west side, and Grenada South on the East.
• Wellington Suburb is the inner city locality made up mostly of the Area Units of Lambton and Willis St-Cambridge Tce (AU 573000 & AU 573100), although it also has pieces of Aro Street-Nairn Street, and Thorndon-Tinakori Rd (AU 573200 & AU 572900). Care is needed as even that info may be out of date, and varied between digital mapping file vendors in New Zealand. I do have the latest WCC file but I need to convert it again between platforms, to define the suburbs accurately. To speak clearly about this level, you must have the file from each of the 74 T/A's, a daunting and expensive task.

• Greater Wellington. We have a 'community of common interest' know as Greater Wellington; containing the 4 cities; Wellington, Porirua, Lower Hutt, Upper Hutt. Transport, Energy, waste, lots of reasons to have such an aggregation.

• Quarters. We have communities of common interest known as 'Quarters' in Wellington City. Advertising, Tourism, Tour operators, People, Art, Music, Entertainment and Food, economies of scale etc, ease of walking between destinations, lots of good reasons for these as well.

So you see that if you don't specify the level, (region, city, suburb, or greater) then you can be quite correct to use Wellington on many occasions, although it could me mis-leading and thats not what we want here. Please dont write off Quarters until the objective data is gathered and presented here, yes there is huge web presence, its a massive tourism push across the world, and many more people know them by that name than perhaps those of us that live/lived there. Compare web results between Courtenay Place (1.39M returns - All of top 50) and Courtenay Quarter (236,000 returns - All of top 50) and Te Aro (569,000 returns - All of first 50 except #9).

Other Boundaries. There are other boundaries and hierarchies to consider; Environmental, Land Use, Hazard, Geological, Urban, Ward, Probation, Health, Police, Electoral, Radio, Internet IP, and still lots more. Parks and Squares are important to consider.

Lines. Line features such as streets really become boundaries once the buffer zone around them is created to take into account that a street is in fact a centre of a community of common interest. Courtenay Place for instance flows into Blair and Allen streets, and they really should be considered as one. High st in Auckland is another example, with scrolling website function. There is one built for Courtenay but not populated yet, however it illustrates the point; http://www.nz.co.nz/roadworks/otherroads/default.asp Wiki Cat: Streets and Squares clearly indicates that Courtenay Place was valid all along.

Points. Point features such as buildings and other notables, statues, etc, should surely be placed in next hierarchy level up? I'm open to whatever is considered best on this one.

Hierarchy. My idea was that each article would carry a hierachy of categories that it was actually in. so any lower item would carry all of the cats above it, but maybe that was weird i dont know. Isnt it a relational database we are building here? I would love to read lots of opinion to find out just what is appropriate, and then decide.

Mapping. If you want some colour/texture thematics here to show the data in official and creative ways, them ask me. I just need to understand the copyright/license issues first, so start with that. In fact we could do with an article just on this subject. Paul Moss moza 15:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Daylight saving

Don't forget to put your clock back tonight (1 hour), NZDT ends, NZST begins. Brian | (Talk) 01:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

List of New Zealand musicians

Back in 2004, I created this list which has been added to since. It contains a mixture of red and blue links that have been added since. I would be grateful if people could look through it and decide whether all of the bands/artists listed would meet our music notability guides.

It was listed for prod by user PhatePunk who I understand is a New Zealander. I think that it is an appropriate list unless we are sure that we have articles on every New Zealand musician, past or present, who meets our music guidelines. User PhatePunk said that he would reprod the article. My understanding is that this matter, as a contested prod, should go before Articles for deletion. Anyway, I will be guided by the consensus views of New Zealand Wikipedians on this issue. Capitalistroadster 04:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont see how you could decide notability before an article was started and allowed to mature for a while. There are many (HEAPS!!) missing off that list that I worked with over the years, for instance Tania Rowles, Graeme Brazier, Harry Lyon, Eddie Low (he's in the first Te Papa on-line exhibition), Jodi Vaughn, Barry Saunders, Wayne Mason (NZ #1 all time song), Don McGlashan (he does have a wiki article though) and so my thoughts are sure keep the list but only if its updated to include ALL the articles in the relevant Categories and only until the relevant Categories are updated to all the articles in the list. Then re-visit the proposal. My feeling is that there is a HUGE amount of work to go before wiki reflects the reality of Kiwi music. There are no Greer brothers, No Billy TK, no Human Instinct.... How about 'Entertainer' as a Category and 'Disc Jockey' and/or 'Radio Announcer'. Then there were engineers, producers, lighting designers, promoters, etc how do they fit in to the scheme of things? Does running a 135 Kilowatt Sound system qualify as notable? I believe that the philosophy of wiki internationally is inclusive of those Cats but Kiwi tall poppy syndrome might contain the expansion to a slow rate. I really do hope that you all prove me wrong. Isn't it a relatively simple matter to glean a huge list of musicians from available material, and the hard bit is to actually write the articles? While I would rather see just one list that we all worked on, to his credit PhatPunk has started on his own copy of the list, in order to categorise the exisiting articles to eventually make the list redundant. thoughts all? moza 13:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

On this exact subject; Flies Inside The Sun, an article I recently created about this NZ band of the 1990s, is up for AFD. I've slowly been building up the articles on artists in this important scene of the '80s and '90s, such as Doramaar, Dadamaar, Wreck Small Speakers On Expensive Stereos, Omit, Peter Jefferies, etc. I'm hoping that this AFD won't set a precedent for other articles. Cnwb 01:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Cnwb, I voted as I believe we all should. The user who initiated the afd clearly has no idea, he states on his user talk page that even elected politicians are deleted if they are not in high enough office. Its such a non-objective area of wiki, where so many think they know what notability is or isnt. I've found a new set of articles that describe us and them: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Darwikinism a good desertation on inclusionism vs deletionism. I'm highly concerned of the weakness in wiki that allows the 'tiger to be wagged by its tail', PRIOR to adequate discussion that may well fix the article and save the information in this space. Fortunately there are plenty of other spaces, but not all users have knowledge of access to anywhere else. The aggressiveness tramples all over the sensitivities of the new wiki users, and I believe thats the subconcious driver; to scare off newbies and retain the territory. But of course i may be way off and I hope alternatives are quickly pointed out. I cant help but wonder why the article was afd'd when its so clearly ok! there is no other delete vote at this point in time. moza 15:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

One of the first bands I worked with was called 'The Game' and I wouldnt bother creating an article about a group in 1968/9 even though we won the Auckland battle of the Bands and supported the Human Instinct at the Bo Peep club in 1970. We recorded at Stebbings when it was just his basement Garage! The keyboard player recently wrote to me to let me know he had the scrapbook with all the newspaper clippings, so maybe now its possible, but I'm struck by the fact that it was very much harder to be a band then, than it is now, and 'notability' is not an accurate measure of achievement. It doesnt seem to matter to most here, as long as it can be verified, otherwise knife it to death. So here I am sitting on 40 years of Kiwi musical history material, but unable to take the credit for sharing it unless i write a book or make a cd, its easy to get an ISBN code and easy to publish music in this day and age. It occurs to me that my own recordings that I engineered of Bands such as Misex are worth more in the can, gathering value as they age. Engineering live doesnt count apparently, and unless you have credit on a product, you're nothing. Well we broke all the bar records in 1977/78. It never occurred to us that we would have to verify it all one day for it to be true, we just did it. Such artificial stratafication; since when did a live peformance become less notable than a recorded performance? How does a bunch of teenagers peforming on a 135 kilowatt rig in front of 50,000 people become less notable than a CD run off in a garage? and what about the engineer in both cases, isnt he/she an integral component? Maybe someone will read this and dig out some verification...moza 15:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

We're about to lose an image

See User_talk:Vardion#Image_copyright_problem_with_Image:NewZealandElectionGraph2002.png, and please discuss what we should do there.-gadfium 01:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Helen Clark

The PM's article needs to be reviewed. It is quite POV with a lot under Controversies, but very little under Helen Clark's achievements. Needs some attention from people who are not party members (of any side). --Midnighttonight 02:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Wellington waterfront - Paul Moss.jpg

has been deleted. Someone take a photo tomorrow and stick it up! I will try, but will not be able to do tomorrow. Thursday at earliest for me. --Midnighttonight 07:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

just put yours on top of my temporary pic, its not really suitable, but can be a placeholder for a day or two.moza 14:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

dunno why the panic, theres already a better one by james Shook here.moza 14:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the old one had more than the Beehive. What would be fantastic is a pic with Bowen House, the Beehive, Parliamentary Buildings, Parliamentary Library as they all make up the Parliamentary complex. --Midnighttonight 21:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

agreed, especially need the older historic buildings. It was bleak yesterday so I went to Te Papa with my artist son, to look at Cezanne to Picasso, and treasures form Japan, and forgot about imaging parliament.moza 04:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

TUI (inventory)

Hello NZers! TUI (inventory) currently has nothing linking to it except the Tui disambiguiation page. There is only one sentence in the article, and I don't imagine there could be much more said. Also, it is encyclopedia-worthy? There is a box at the top of the page suggesting it be merged with The Warehouse Group. Is there an administrator here who could just go ahead and do that? Seems minor, simple and logical. If the page is kept, it should be moved to TUI (merchandising) because TUI is not an inventory system but a merchandising system. Their inventory system is called TOLAS. Mona-Lynn 21:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm tending towards getting rid of it unless it is a product that they sell to other companies. Most large companies will have in-house systems for HR, applications, CRM and other random stuff all of which probably have cost millions to develop over the years. - SimonLyall 09:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyone near Gore?

Following a question at the Gore, New Zealand talk page, I've been helping to track down which church in East Gore is one of the two remaining wooden gothic churches designed by Robert Lawson. Now that we have confirmed that it is the old East Gore Presbyterian Church, I was wondering if there was a Kiwipedian anywhere near Gore with some ability with a camera who could take a photograph of it for the Gore, New Zealand and Robert Lawson articles? Blarneytherinosaur 07:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC).