Jump to content

Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20


Wikipedia 10th anniversary celebration

Anyone given any thought to how New Zealand Wikipedians should mark the tenth anniversary of Wikipedia's foundation on Saturday 15 January? See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Day and Wikipedia 10. We could have meetups in the major cities. Alternatively, would meeting for a BBQ at some park or beach with appropriate facilities be a good idea?-gadfium 18:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes we should do something. The Aussies are organising themselves for the event in two cities at present. We have to go for at least four cities!!! How about a session of editing at libraries that have wireless? Our task is to get all that info on dead tree format into WP so why not do it socially?. New Brighton library here in Chch has wireless access. We can do the beach bbq thing after an editing session. I'll bring my wood fired bbq! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Would be interested... I guess it's a bit late now, being less than two weeks away though. sonia♫ 06:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

[Dunedin] If anybody in (or within access distance of) Dunedin is keen, I realise this is a bit basic, but I'd be up for a couple drinks locally. An all-day event would be less feasible for me, at least, and, anyhow, for organising anything substantial the 15th is coming in pretty quick! Say, Tonic on Princes St from 8? Cosy, good beer/non-alc and sufficiently low key not to be too hectic with other events, in theory. Any others keen, please sing out and save me drinking alone :)

Alternatively, I'm happy to book a table for dinner, if people feel something less alcohol-related for drivers/non-drinkers would be good, so if you'd definitely attend that, please post here and if there're four or more keen, I'll sort something. Provisionally, I'll say Etrusco's just to put one out there, but any other suggestions appreciated.

Summary: I'll be at Tonic, 8pm on 15th, unless 3 more people post here to wanting to go for dinner -- Philtweir (talk) 06:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I've put up a page for Dunedin on Wikipedia 10, just in case there are others (I'll go anyhow to make sure there's somebody). Unfortunately, I'm not able to travel up so apologies for not joining in any other activities! Philtweir (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

[Westport] How about having one in Westport, New Zealand because it has a lot of people who use Wikipedia all the time just like me.

Auckland photos

Hi all - just wanted to remind people of this very useful source of images of Auckland history:

http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/dbtw-wpd/heritageimages/keyword.htm

These are especially useful for the early days of Auckland, where we can use the photos nowadays without fear of copyright IF they author has been deceased for 50 years (in that case, it's Template:PD-NZ and in the public domain).

To give Auckland Libraries them some credit (because I otherwise get a bit peeved about them, like other libraries, rubber-stamping their "This is ours, no use without permission!" tags on everything), they also have a photographer's database, where you can then check whether that particular author has been deceased 50 years ago or not.

http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/dbtw-wpd/photographers/basic_search.htm

Particularly useful are the Winkelmann and Richardson archives - they seem to me a bit like modern-day Wikipedians - spending all their time documenting their surroundings, and then donating the material to the public. Ingolfson (talk) 08:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you! PoinDexta1 | Talk to Me 20:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Fox Glacier accidents

I'd like some opinions on whether the article Fox Glacier should cover accidents at the glacier and/or the airport, and in what level of detail. Please contribute at Talk:Fox Glacier#Fox aircrash-gadfium 19:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Air New Zealand

The history section of Air New Zealand leads with:

"Air New Zealand began as TEAL (Tasman Empire Airways Limited) in 1940, operating Short Empire flying boats on trans-Tasman routes. "

The article History of Air New Zealand leads with:

"The history of Air New Zealand.....began when the amalgamated East Coast Airways and Cook Strait Airways began operations in January 1936 as Union Airways...."

Going to need a little work to fix, but I haven't time. Anyone? Moriori (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Maori language and people

There is a discussion at Talk:Māori#move that may be of interest to editors here. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Redirects

Some of my redirects have been questioned by User:Psb777. The NZ ones are:

Can I get some feedback on this? Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with User:Psb777 that A Good Keen Man should not redirect to Barry Crump. Useful information. Needs work, but doesn't deserve deletion. Moriori (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with User:Psb777 as per User:Moriori as to A Good Keen Man, definitely a notable work of NZ literature. Not sure about Whitewash Head but it's definitely an official place name as per LINZ (and going by the article history I wasn't the only one to find that out!) Daveosaurus (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject desk interview

Is anyone interested in being interviewed by the Signpost for this feature? sonia♫ 18:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

We were approached in 2008, but no one followed up on it. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand/Archive 2#WikiProject report.-gadfium 19:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on orthography of dual names (again)

Aoraki / Mount Cook was recently moved to Aoraki/Mount Cook without discussion (the spaces around the slash being removed) and the article title now contravenes Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand). Because this potentially effects 90+ other articles, I have initiated a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(New_Zealand)#Does_usage_trump_convention? dramatic (talk) 01:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Auckland Wikipedia Meetup

I'd love to have a meetup for Auckland on April 9. As past ones have been held at the library, having it there would be a good option as it is easy to get to, has decent hot chocolate and isn't that expensive. :) --LauraHale (talk) 04:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Sign me up :) sonia♫ 05:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Added the information to the Auckland meetup page. :) Trying to get funding to cover the price of coffee. :) --LauraHale (talk) 05:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I haven't missed a meetup in Auckland yet. This one isn't going to be an exception.-gadfium 19:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Contrary to gadfium, I have missed all the recent ones, and since it seems I already have stuff happening for this one too, I may not be there for this one either. Sorry. Have fun - Cheers Ingolfson (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Dunedin Wikipedia Meetup

I'm going to be in Dunedin on April 11 and April 12. I'm tentatively scheduling a Dunedin Wikipedia Meetup for the night of April 12. If anyone else is interested in attending, we can determine the venue after that. --LauraHale (talk) 05:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Beyond Capricorn again

Can some people have a quick look at recent edits to History of New Zealand and the talk page. Got somebody wanting to expand the Beyond Capricorn coverage and I'd like some more input before I get into a revert war - SimonLyall (talk) 10:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be changed back to a reference and expanded to give title, author, publisher etc.? I'd do it myself except I don't have access to the book. Daveosaurus (talk) 11:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Stuart Nash

Can I have some extra eyes on Stuart Nash please. Is the recent addition suitable, as it does have a reliable source, or is it undue weight?-gadfium 19:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It is of some concern that the anonymous IP that reverted your last edits has only ever edited this article. I feel there is some COI and POV involved. Not sure how best to deal with it though. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have a bandwidth problem in NZ?

Hi folks - trying to find out if others have the same issues in the recent month or two as I have. Loading (and especially saving edits) of Wikipedia intermittently takes forever (sometimes easily a minute until a save is confirmed). Often it simply cuts out and I get a blank screen almost as if we were back in the early 404 error message days. The same thing applies to Commons, where edits and image uploads regularly fail, and javascript tools are slow like molasses or intermittently don't work at all.

So is it just me / my ISP (Telecom, in the Auckland CBD area) or is it an issue from the Wikimedia side? While my broadband connection doesn't seem to be the fanciest, it is clearly a Wiki/Commons issue only. Ingolfson (talk) 04:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

On ihug, and I have the same issue often. sonia♫ 04:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Try logging out and giving it a go. AFAIK logged in users always use the US based servers while anonymous users should get somewhere a little closer. - SimonLyall (talk) 04:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
It's been working ok for me over the last couple of months apart from the Commons thumbnail issue in the last few days. If your broadband is asymmetric then uploads take longer, changing a 160k article is at least 10 seconds to upload at 128kbps. It sounds like you're experiencing congestion on the upstream side - you can check the local PC via Windows Task Manager\Networking, or the ISP via a speed test like http://www.speedtest.net/. XLerate (talk) 05:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I have xtra broadband. Hardly worth trying to edit wiki at night time (NZ time). I am often totally stalled, meaning I can't actually get to an edit page even tho I am logged on. I mean regularly. Happens with Safari, Firefox and Opera. Logged out several time, but absolutely no improvement. Clearing all caches makes no diff. Good movie on tonight tho. Moriori (talk) 05:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The only problem I have down south is sometimes on Commons. But nothing that prevents me from working. Maybe the quake zone has sufficiently emptied out... Schwede66 08:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I consistently get "502 Proxy error" messages when submitting edits or viewing diffs for the New Zealand article, but don't generally have trouble with other (typically smaller) pages or with image uploads. The error doesn't stop the edit being saved, it just stops me viewing the result. ISP: Orcon. Speedtest.net results from a minute ago: ping 71 ms, download speed 2.75 Mbps, upload speed 0.82 Mbps. --Avenue (talk) 10:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
If no other program or person is using the connection and the performance/test results degrade significantly at peak times then it's mostly likely the ISP has a capacity issue, I'd complain to them about it with the test results. If they don't resolve it you can always shop around for another provider, or contact TDR. For the "502 Proxy error" I'd also tell the ISP, assuming it's their proxy causing the message. XLerate (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I periodically have this problem, at times quite severe. I have assumed that Wikipedia just has a low priority when it comes to maintaining services in this region. But when I queried another NZ editor, he reported no concurrent problems.--Epipelagic (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Late Thursday night (NZ time) I tried to access Wikipedia. Took ages to actually get in to Wiki, and then even longer to go to watchlist. I clicked on a diff in the watchlist, and waited so long I gave up. Then accessed BBC, stuff, trademe, weather station and formula 1 website. No probs. My speed check revealed 10.79 Mbps download, .71 Mbps upload and ping .71ms. Moriori (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
The Wikipedia server status can be checked via meta:Wikimedia servers#Status and problems. It sounds like Telecom maybe throttling traffic to Wikipedia, perhaps accidentally? Trying via secure when the performance is poor may possibly avoid it if that's the cause. XLerate (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Same problem here. Orcon in suburban Auckland. Same problem as Avenue when saving edits - it will be saved (can see that in another browser tab) but the tab that saved the edit waits and waits and waits for for an indication that it has been saved. I can't remember whether it is "show preview" or "show changes" or both that are also slow, but for them one has to wait and wait because one's edits are unsaved at that point. I haven't noticed other sites being slow at the same time, so assume it is a wikipedia problem. Anyone been in touch with w/p tech people? Nurg (talk) 02:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Who's from Christchurch?

Our Centre of Contemporary Art article has no mention of the earthquake/s in Christchurch where it is centrally located. I understand it is still closed so we need to update. Anyone? Moriori (talk) 04:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

That part of Gloucester St is open again. Schwede66 04:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Categories for New Zealand Historic Places Trust

See the proposal for subcategories. Schwede66 19:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

W.J. (Bill) Jordan, British High Commissioner to NZ

Hello,

I am trying to find out some information connected with W.J. (Bill) Jordan, particularly in the period of the late 1940's. Anyone who can help or put me on to family or colleagues would be very much appreciated. Kind regards,

Paul Ewen shoeswithrockets@yahoo.co.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.201.133.242 (talk) 14:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

That's the wrong way, Corrigan. Read about him here W J Jordan Eddaido (talk) 01:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:National parks of New Zealand

I see that Category:National parks of New Zealand has had three subcats added that include geographical features related to the parks. I don't agree with this level of categorisation. Categories are black and white, cut and dried, with no means of annotation. The related articles may only have only a passing relationship with the parrk, such as a river.... The articles in the subcats are better off being in the actual article so that it can be described in the context of the park. Thoughts? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Whereas it is possible and logical to detail the major features of the park in the article, for a park like Fiordland the article would become unmanageable if it were to mention every river, lake and mountain within it. A reader looking for information about a national park would naturally look at both the article and the category to find out about features of the park, and it makes sense to have these features categorised for that reason. I'd also compare it to similar categories for other national parks worldwide - natural features within the US's Category:Yellowstone and England's Category:Dartmoor are effectively categorised in this way - I don't really see why NZ should be different. Grutness...wha? 01:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
This was discussed earlier at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand/Archive 3#National Parks categories.-gadfium 01:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
...mutter, mutter, grumble grumble. oh all right... -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Template {{Treaty of Waitangi}}

I have a short time ago undeleted this template, which was blanked on 7 February, perhaps an anti-treaty protest? Regards, 220.101 talk\Contribs 06:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it was vandalism. A one-hit wonder from an anonymous editor. Thanks for noticing! Grutness...wha? 01:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Scottish Gaelic

Is it appropriate to add Gaelic translations/origins of names in the lede sentence of New Zealand articles, as is currently the case at, for example, Balmoral, New Zealand? See the recent contributions of User:Dlpkbr for further examples, and User talk:Dlpkbr#Gaelic translations.-gadfium 08:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree it is inappropriate for NZ locations that are named for locations in Scotland rather than directly derived from Gaelic words. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Me too. It would be appropriate for directly-named places (e.g., Dunedin, Balclutha), but not for places named for similarly named places in Scotland (e.g., Ranfurly, Clyde) Grutness...wha? 01:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Well Clyde would be problematic, as the English name for Balclutha is Clyde ;) . Dlpkbr (talk) 03:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
True enough... just the first one that popped into my mind :) Grutness...wha? 09:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
So it is inappropriate if the place is named after a another place in Scotland, which has been Anglicised when speaking in English. While it is ok if the place name is directly derived from Gaelic words, such as Invercargill; Inver meaning river mouth and cargill, a Gaelic surname.
Or do you mean if it is Anglicised in New Zealand? Such as the naming of Benmore in South Canterbury; an Anglicisation of Beinn Mhòr, meaning big mountain. Dlpkbr (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Given that IIRC Benmore is named after Ben More, the point's moot - but in general if someone said "This reminds me of Beinn Mhòr in Scotland", then that is the explanation for it's name: "Benmore is named for Beinn Mhòr in Scotland, Benmore being the angicised version of the name". If someone said "Hey, that's a big mountain, let's call the place Benmore", then the full explanation of the gaelic makes total sense. So the line in the article on Dunedin: "The name comes from Dùn Èideann, the Scottish Gaelic name for Edinburgh" makes sense, with no need to explain what Dùn means. With Invercargill, it makes perfect sense to say that Inver means the mouth of a river, since there is no Invercargill in Scotland. But with somewhere like , say, the Dunedin suburb of Roslyn, saying that it's named after Rosslyn in Scotland is enough - saying it comes from a Gaelic words meaning a holly-covered moor is unnecessary, as that is irrelevant to its use in New Zealand. Grutness...wha? 01:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, the point is not moot if all you have is a IIRC. For all I or other users know, you could just be making that up. Oh and by the way where you get the idea that Roslyn comes from Gaelic? Wikipedia clearly states that the main etymology is Cumbric (P-Celtic). Was this the same place that you heard Benmore is named after Ben More in Mull? Secondly, what is relevant and what is irrelevant is subjective. Etymology might not be relevant to you, but it is included in nearly every single dictionary for good measure. Similarly, toponymy might not be relevant to you, but that does not mean it should not in an article. Dlpkbr (talk) 07:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary. Asides given on talk pages do not require reliable sourcing, although if you really need to know how the name Roslyn came about you could always google for it and find something like this: [1]. But the point that seems to be being lost in this discussion is that these names are not bestowed in Gaelic (which has never been an official language of New Zealand); they are bestowed in English, either by speakers of English or by bilingual persons, because of some real or imagined resemblance of a landform or original home of the bestower of the name. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's appropriate. Anyone wishing to find out the previous history of a New Zealand place name of Gaelic origin can easily click through to the Scottish or Irish place the New Zealand place is named after and read the history there. For example, anyone can click from the Balmoral, New Zealand article through to Balmoral Castle, wonder about the lack of a link back to the disambiguation page Balmoral, find it eventually, and find out there that the Gaelic "Baile Mhoireil" is there claimed to be Irish Gaelic. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
So (what seems to be) the general opinion is that NZ cannot stand on its own two feet. A reader must Kowtow to a mother-country's records (or worse) to find the origin of a name. I think this is daft and Dlpkbr is correct. Eddaido (talk) 09:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
No, the general opinion is that if a place in New Zealand is named for another place, then the meaning of the place name in its original for is only of secondary importance and may not have any local relevance. New Plymouth is not at the mouth of the New Plym River - there is no such river. It is named for Plymouth pure and simple, without any relevance to what Plymouth means, only that New Plymouth was named for it. As such, it makes no sense to explain how Plymouth got its name. And the same is true for Gaelic placenames which are directly attributable to their British counterparts. There is no river Orchy at Glenorchy, nor are there large numbers of rooks at Roxburgh - they are named for places in Scotland, not for reasons relating to their own nature.
Similarly, it would make little sense for there to be an explanation of how New Zealand got its name in the article on New Zealand, Wiltshire, though it is appropriate to say why the village was named after the country. It's nothing to do with "kowtowing to the mother-country", as you put it. Grutness...wha? 09:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Goodness me, one size fits all then, any colour you like so long as its black but you do know it does make a lot of sense when done as Dlpkbr does it. Should Hugo999's contribution of the source of NP's name be wiped? I referred to your statements with supporter, as an Apparent general opinion and certainly not a general opinion. Anyway I may seem to be kowtowing to you but I am not sincere. Would it be better I pulled a forelock? Eddaido (talk) 10:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, one size does fit all. That's what's known as consistency in writing. I know that it makes NO sense when done as Dlpkbr does it, for the reasons given above. And Hugo999's only contribution to the New Plymouth article was to disambiguate some links. The New Plymouth article quite correctly only mentions that the city was named after Plymouth, but does not give any derivations for the name Plymouth as it is not relevant. Neither is it relevant to mention the Gaelic derivations for NZ places named after places in Scotland. As to you pulling a forelock please try to stick to debating the point rather that descending into sarcasm. Grutness...wha? 00:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
It is neither appropriate nor necessary for the reasons given above to have such translations/origins in the lede. The origin is the name it is inherited from; a link to that name is sufficient. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 10:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Well now, There's colonial thinking for you, all the way from? Eddaido (talk) 10:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Auckland. That's where DCINZ is from. Grutness...wha? 00:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Polynesia article - NZ Maori subsection accuracy re NZ government legitimacy etc

Just happened to notice Polynesia#New_Zealand_Maori - seems inaccurate and highly POV to me. It'd be good if some of you could find the time to have a look at it and make some changes. Cheers Kahuroa (talk) 20:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right. I added some tags, sorry don't have time to address the issues at the moment. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that. As well as the NZ government material, the Maori tribal conquests parts seem a bit dodgy too, might as well say the whole subsection is dodgy. If I get time I might look at that Kahuroa (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
On second thoughts I have removed the subsection - it just contained too many gross errors to be worth the effort in trying to save it. It really woould be better to start from scratch Kahuroa (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_Zealand_Wikipedians%27_notice_board/Archive_15&oldid=1138555779"