Jump to content

Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand" redirects here. For the WikiProject itself, see Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand.
Shortcut
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: 11:39, 15 November 2025 NZDT [refresh]
Universal time and date: 22:39 14 November 2025 UTC (refresh)
Wikinews has media related to: New Zealand

Archives

[edit]

Article alerts

[edit]

Did you know

Articles for deletion

Proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Good article nominees

Good article reassessments

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles for creation

(2 more...)

61 Molesworth Street

[edit]

Hi I'm currently working on Draft:61 Molesworth Street, a building in Wellington that was demolished after the 2016 Kaikōura earthquake. I'm having trouble figuring out how to name that article, so I would really appreciate some ideas. I've got two main issues. Firstly, as far as I'm aware, the building is known more by it's street address 61 Molesworth Street, so I think that would be used in the title (like in 1 Broadway). The article Molesworth Street, Wellington has a disambiguator (Wellington) in the title so would the building article also include the disambiguator or not? The second thing I'm confused about is that there's now a replacement building at that site. Should the title have something to clarify that the article is about the demolished one, similar to World Trade Center (1973–2001)? How would you have both of these in the same title? "61 Molesworth Street, Wellington (1965–2017)"? ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:08, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My gut is that 61 Molesworth Street would be fine on its own, until there's a need to disambiguate that exact term. So until either the building at 61 Molesworth Street in Dublin or the new building on the same site in Wellington gets an article, it should be fine without disambiguation. Turnagra (talk) 09:02, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Turnagra. I think the title you've started with is fine. No need to disambiguate for city or date. Nurg (talk) 09:10, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both of you. I'll keep the title as is. ―Panamitsu (talk) 09:17, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that title is just fine. Schwede66 09:23, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some quick googling and the only practical alternative name seems to be ICI House, Wellington, and there's not much mention of the former name on-line (but a few mentions in The Press between 1961 and 1989 which is as far as the run of The Press in Papers Past goes up to). I've found a couple of resources which may be of some use: https://architecture.org.nz/2016/11/17/ici-house/ (its architectural significance) and https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU0510/S00295/deloitte-makes-move-to-new-wellington-premises.htm (a 2005 press release for Deloitte moving out after 15 years). Daveosaurus (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, these are useful resources that I haven't come across. I'll use them. ―Panamitsu (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This may be useful, I haven't looked at it myself. [1] Traumnovelle (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Might be, thanks. ―Panamitsu (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I worked in the building in the 2000s, from memory it was ICI House, then Deloitte House, then occupied by IRD for a few years (we moved into a new building 2009/2010 - Asteron, opposite the railway station, but were in another building after 61 Moles. for about a year before then). I don't think I have any pictures that I took while working there.
It had 9 floors for office space (including the ground floor), and didn't have a basement. The ground floor had shops on the front, the reception area (which was very big with the mural from ICI), a small amount of office space, and covered parking/utilities/storage. The services part just had lifts and the stairwells (which was 10 stories, as there was one set of stairs to go up above the 9th floor to get onto the roof - no lift to there, not sure where the article referenced got 11 from). No references for any of this 8-). David Nind (talk) 23:15, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wow thanks! I'll see if I can find references for this stuff. ―Panamitsu (talk) 23:46, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Battle of Beersheba (1917)

[edit]

Battle of Beersheba (1917) has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 02:08, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:2021 Rugby World Cup#Requested move 24 August 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2021 Rugby World Cup#Requested move 24 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 05:44, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Asafo Aumua

[edit]

Asafo Aumua has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aotearoa New Zealand Wiki online meetup - Sunday 14th of September

[edit]

Hi everyone, just a reminder that the Aotearoa New Zealand Wiki meet up will be held online this weekend on Sunday the 14th of September from noon until 2pm. For the agenda and the link please see the meet up page. Ambrosia10 (talk) 06:10, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the meeting notes if folk are interested in what some editors are doing around to country. Ambrosia10 (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for King Kong (2005 film)

[edit]

King Kong (2005 film) has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Te Wiki o te Reo Māori

[edit]

Kia ora, welcome to Te Wiki o te Reo Māori (Māori language week)! Here's a list of relevant topics that could be improved:

Article Class Notes
Māori Language Week Start
Māori language B
Maori Language Act 1987 C Unanswered question on the Talk page about how/when macrons were added to the act
Māori Language Act 2016 Possibly not notable enough for a standalone
Te Puni Kōkiri C
A korao no New Zealand Start / Stub First book written in te reo
Kia Ora Incident Stub Cultural inflection point involving Naida Glavish
Scotty Morrison (broadcaster) Start Influential academic and broadcaster, picture needed too
Kura kaupapa Māori C Needs more references
Wānanga Start Needs updating
Māori Braille Stub
Māori phonology
Māori poetry Stub Needs some major work
Māori language revival Start
Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori Stub In English: Māori language commission
Bruce Biggs Start Influential linguist
Iritana Tāwhiwhirangi Influential educator

Also take a look at other articles under Category:Māori language. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Māori Language Act 2016 was an article until it was deleted on 9 September by the way, because it was created by a sockpuppet. ―Panamitsu (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That article was start class, and I don't see any issues with it other than having been created by a sockpuppet. It does have rather a lot of redlinks for its length. If anyone might be interested in working on it, I'll ask the deleting admin if they have any objection to it being restored (or anyone can ask them; at User talk:Explicit).-Gadfium (talk) 23:15, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DotCoder was blocked for copyright violations so it is probably best to just start anew. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:05, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the 2016 act is just changing terminology and doesn't have any significant changes to the legislation it'd make sense to just cover the content in the 1987 act article. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it did have significant changes it'd make sense to create an article. It would be pretty unusual to repeal an act just to change terminology, with no substantive change. Nurg (talk) 07:05, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article on the 1987 act: 'The 1987 act was repealed by section 48 of the Māori Language Act 2016. However, there were no major changes from the provisions of the old legislation and the 2016 act merely updated the 1987 law with new provisions and language.' Traumnovelle (talk) 07:29, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. I have now replaced that uncited 2nd sentence with cited content. Nurg (talk) 09:38, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Waiata and karakia could use some attention from people who know about them. The first in particular seems to have fallen through the cracks. Furius (talk) 07:10, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Waiata is just a disambiguation page. Māori music is the page that covers waiata. Nurg (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wellington Wiki Meetup Saturday 27 September

[edit]

A reminder that the Wellington Wiki Meetup is happening on Saturday 27 September 2025 10am until noon. Te Kupenga room, one floor up from reception - just off the first floor landing of National Library, corner Molesworth and Aitken Streets, Wellington See this link for the agenda. -- Ambrosia10 (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:infobox marae has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

An infobox template I created Template:Infobox marae has been nominated for deletion. It hasn’t had wide uptake unfortunately. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see people weighing in to support this. It's a good initiative and will get rolled out more widely. — Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 04:23, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see the deletion nomination has been withdrawn. Good work everybody! DrThneed (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aotearoa New Zealand online meetup Sunday 12 October

[edit]

Hi everyone, just a reminder that the monthly Aotearoa New Zealand online meetup will be held today Sunday the 12th of October starting at noon. The link to attend as well as the agenda can be found here Hope to see you there! - Ambrosia10 (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 local body elections

[edit]

Regarding the various articles and biographies related to the 2025 New Zealand local elections, most local councils and the media have released preliminary results. Should we wait for them to release the full results before updating election-related articles and the biographies of politicians and candidates? Andykatib (talk) 06:54, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite ok to update articles now. When we do, it's important to state that we are using "preliminary results", i.e. the results that came out on Sunday (using a higher proportion of the total votes than the "progress results" from Saturday afternoon). Note that all incumbents remain in their position until the day after the final results get released. When talking about incoming mayors, they are currently mayors-elect. Schwede66 07:20, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your advice @Schwede66:, will see what I can do. Cheers. Andykatib (talk) 07:26, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to update all the results articles when final results are released cause it would be a lot of work so don't want to do it twice TheLoyalOrder (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone, I have made progress in updating the entries of the Southland and Otago territorial authorities election results. There are still gaps in the various Results of the 2025 New Zealand territorial authority elections. Feel free to help. The various district councils' websites will have the final results for the 2025 local body elections. Andykatib (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yes, just havent had the motivation to do it recently - definitely plan to at some point TheLoyalOrder (talk) 23:45, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear from you @TheLoyalOrder:. Happy to cover the South Island district elections if you wanted to focus on the North Island. I'm from the South Island so it would make sense for me to cover the mainland before swooping onto the North Island if you need help. Feel free to divide the load and suggest areas I could focus on. Andykatib (talk) 03:06, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a results table for the Future Dunedin electoral ticket but don't know how to change the ticket color from red to black. For the small top table, how do I show that one of their candidates was elected onto the Dunedin City Council? Andykatib (talk) 03:11, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
fixed it for you, you had bgcolor= instead of style= TheLoyalOrder (talk) 05:06, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing it, learnt something new today. Andykatib (talk) 06:34, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Landfall archive - best way to add external links from writer articles?

[edit]

I'm mulling over a possible project relating to the Landfall archive. The archive (here) contains pdfs of the first 40 years of the journal, and therefore contains poems, articles, stories, art, reviews etc from a lot of New Zealand contributors.

Looking at articles for some of the writers (e.g. Allen Curnow, Denis Glover) I see that they have long lists of their works but very few if any of these are available to read online (or if they are, there's no mention in the Wikipedia article). I think it would be great to be able to link our readers to a place they can read examples of writers' work online for free, but would love opinions on the preferred way of doing it.

Options:

  1. There is no "landing page" for a particular creator in the journal website, so I could just add something like "Search for Denis Glover's contributions in the Landfall archive" in External links at the bottom of the page, but it would just go to the archive homepage so would not be that helpful about what works you might expect to find.
  2. I could add external links to the individual works as listed in the publication list, by linking the name of the work. I normally avoid external links in articles per MOS but maybe this is acceptable? e.g. The Casual Man
  3. I could add external links to the individual publications as listed, by adding text after e.g. The Casual Man (available at the Landfall archive)
  4. I could add the link as a citation to the work on the publication list (this avoids adding external links to the article but somewhat obscures that the work is available to read) e.g. The Casual Man [1]

The example links I've given lead to the archive page for the particular work, but the access to the online journal issue is a further link at the bottom of that work page - I could link directly to the relevant journal issue instead.

Seeking opinions on the best way to go about this! Maybe there are other options I haven't thought of? DrThneed (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC) DrThneed (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely be using the link to the actual article (like this) rather than the link to the catalogue page in their archive. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DrThneed: love this idea, however you slice it. I think options 2 or 3 would work best. And the good news is I think this is clearly acceptable per MOS:BIBLIO (which the MOS guidance on external links says to defer to in the case of a bibliography/list of publications):

When a book or article is available online through a site such as Internet Archive, Project Gutenberg, Google Books, or an open access website, it may be useful to provide a link to the online content so readers can view it; the link should always be accompanied by the necessary information such as title and publication date.

I'd love to help out with this project if I can. Let me know if there's anything someone of limited/unpredictable Wiki capacity could usefully do. :) Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great question, Dr Thneed. I'm not entirely sure what MOS:BIBLIO says. Does that allow external links in prose? Even if it does, my guess is that too many editors would nuke a construct like that on sight. Your options 3 and 4 look best to me. Schwede66 01:30, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's maybe not 100% clear (I wish they'd included an example!). On reflection I think 3 is best anyway, because 2 might get in the way of redlinking titles of works (if they may warrant a future article). 4 is fine from a MOS compliance perspective but it'll just look like a citation, not a link to the full work. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 06:13, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughts @Schwede66, @Giantflightlessbirds and @Chocmilk03.
I think I'm tending towards adjusting option 3 to be give the details specified by MOS:BIBLIO, something like
"The Casual Man (available online "The Casual Man". Landfall. 34 (4): 320. 1980.)"
That repeats the title of the work, which is where the cite journal template then places the url, and provides the full citation in a cite journal template, but missing out the author name as that seems superfluous. Hopefully most editors would see that as an improvement to an entirely unlinked list of publications but I guess we'll see! And to be clear I'm only suggesting adding these links to publication lists rather than to mentions of works anywhere in the body of an article.
@Chocmilk03, I'll be chatting with the Landfall and OUP people about this idea soon, and I'll keep you in the loop for sure. DrThneed (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good work! Schwede66 23:17, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Glover, Denis (1980). "The Casual Man". Landfall. 34 (4): 320.

BLP

[edit]

Following a comment on Christopher Luxon's talk page yesterday about wp:synth, I looked myself at his article and have considerably changed two subsections. I seems to me what was there was simply wrong or distortions of the truth. It also seems this was due to casual/careless use of sources - opinion based media sources in particular, where one sided remarks that were clearly published as opinion pieces in media articles, were transferred here as if they were properly sourced statements of fact. I'm guessing this raises concerns regarding our treatment of living people, where we are simply saying things that are not true. At some point, the subject of one of these articles might decide to take matters further and speak to a lawyer? Shouldn't we be extra careful when editing wp:BLP articles, and be doubly careful in what we write when using media sources. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:30, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

looking at the article with the "who wrote this", it seems most of the pov edits are by one user. not sure this really raises concerns about "our" treatment of living people as a wikiproject. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 06:28, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
looking at their edit history, they really seem to miss the mark on how to edit encylopaedically. a lot of their articles read like argumentative essays on the subject rather than articles (Criminal justice in New Zealand as an example). TheLoyalOrder (talk) 06:38, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's interesting. I did not look back to see who had added the text. I assumed it was several editors, added over time. There are similar pov additions to other articles though, so I am not sure it all relates to just one person. I have just removed a large chunk of text from Don Brash. Athough much of it was probably correct, it was all uncited, hence best removed. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:33, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, what a nifty tool. Didn't know about this. Which editor are we talking about here? Kiwimanic? Schwede66 03:00, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yes, i had left a msg on their userpage yesterday suggesting to them to read up on relevant wiki policy, hopefully they take the advice TheLoyalOrder (talk) 03:28, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see that message has been removed by Kiwimanic. Ah well, we might as well discuss it here then. Please have a read what other editors have to say about your style of editing. Rest assured that there will be a few eyes watching over your edits going forward. If you cannot write neutrally, Kiwimanic, then Wikipedia isn't the right hobby for you. I hope that's unambiguous advice. Any questions, please ask. Here's good. Schwede66 09:27, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it for two reasons. One because it was from a totally random editor who has not contributed to any of the articles I have worked on and who I therefore assumed knows nothing about my editing. Two because it began with "I believe a large majority of your edits are not in line with building an encyclopaedia."
Believing is a religious exercise. Wikipedia is not supposed to be based on what people believe. If TheLoyalOrder had provided some evidence for his assertions, I would have taken him more seriously. Kiwimanic (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want an example of what you're doing wrong here's one: Luxon left Air NZ about 6 years ago. Whatever management decisions they make today have nothing to do with him so shouldn't be in his article - if anywhere they belong in the Air NZ article. Daveosaurus (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also related to this discussion about editing and citational practices - Talk:New Zealand Drug Foundation#Original research. I'd taken a look at the NZDF page after this discussion to de-essay, see details in my edit summaries, but was wholly reverted. Drew Stanley (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should be careful with BLP articles, hence the BLP policy. The edits in question were from one specific editor. I think overall we do a good job with BLP subjects in New Zealand compared to other countries, although there are still articles with BLP violations and we should clean those up when we come across them. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've just checked the Luxon article and can see all that AIRNZ stuff I removed had indeed just been added by that one editor, whom I agree is advocating a certain opinion. And yes, that tool looks very useful, and was very easy to install. More generally about BLP, I think a problem arises when editors take the latest newspaper mention of a person and just add it to a wp article because the subject's name is mentioned. Journalists are trained to write in a way that gets across a message or opinion about someone while avoiding it being defamation. I think that when that newspaper article is transferred into WP a lot of that writing technique gets lost, making what is written on WP potentially defamatory. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:19, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More wooly thinking. What opinion do you think I am advocating? Point to something I added which you think is defamatory. Or to something you deleted because you think it is not true - one of your beliefs in your first comment above. Kiwimanic (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence was removed - "After reportedly failing to win board support to sack Virgin Australia CEO John Borghetti, Luxon left the Virgin Australia board and sold Air New Zealand's 25.9 per cent shareholding losing millions on the deal." Reportedly? That means somebody else thought it happened, but the author does not say it did happen, ie, it's gossip. 'Win support', 'sack', these are casual aggressive informal terms that are fine for the media but not for an encyclopedia. Luxon sold nothing, AIRNZ did. Luxon was a competent businessman in charge of a major nz company looking to enter politics at a high level, therefore having a reputation to maintain. Penalties for not complying with the Companies Act, as a director, are severe. If you go round telling the world that he lost millions of a company's money, as a person, or as a director, then I would would call that potentially defamatory. Most people would probably view the posting as poorly written and shrug it off, but some might not. Look at the current case of Tally's taking a journalist to court for remarks he made about the company on TV, to see how careful we should be about adverse comments about the running of a high profile company (or the way director's run that company) As well as all this, we should ask why you have written what you did about the guy - it is a clear swipe at his character. I suggest you practise reading, and transferring, media based sources more carefully before using them as sources in WP. First, ask yourself what value they add to an article. Luxon's day-to-day running of AIRNZ as the CEO, does not warrant inclusion here unless it resulted in some notable event, which your edit's do not show. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, in addition, I notice you have removed the message on your talk page about being an advocate. You can do what you want on your own talk page, but I suggest, it doesn't look too good if you remove other editor's comments just because you don't like them or don't agree with them. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roger8Roger claims the statement that Luxon "lost millions of a company's money" was potentially defamatory. Then Luxon should sue Matthew Hooten in the Herald: for saying: "luckily the loss to Air NZ shareholders [from selling Virgin], including taxpayers, was probably under $100 million." Or he could sue Grant Bradley for this article which says Air New Zealand had spent around $484 million in Virgin and sold it for $386 million. These are reliable sources reporting well documented facts. There is nothing defamatory about them. Roger8 - You need to check your facts before making unsubstantiated allegations about my editing.

You should also check the legal definition of defamation. See this: "A statement is not defamatory if it is true or materially true. Kiwimanic (talk) 01:04, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some more facts you need to check before jumping to conclusions.

1) "Australian media has reported Air New Zealand's move to sell all or part of its stake in Virgin was brought on by a failed bid to oust Virgin chief executive John Borghetti." The Australia media was the Sydney Morning Herald. It says: "Mr Luxon [resigned] after failing to receive support to replace Mr Borghetti from other directors."

2) Your comment that AirNZ sold Virgin is true. It is also true that Luxon was the CEO of AirNZ. It couldn't sell anything without his say so. And it was sold immediately after he resigned from Virgin's board after failing to oust John Borghetti. Coincidence - I don't think so. This source says: "Luxon resigned from the board effective immediately, and sold Air New Zealand's stake soon after.

3) So its not gossip at all. Its well reported in the media. Kiwimanic (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

>Coincidence - I don't think so.
What you think is irrelevant, what matters is if reliable sources make the connection. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What you think is also irrelvant. I have quoted reliable sources. Read what I just wrote. Kiwimanic (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that newspapers can be reliable sources, but context matters. These articles look to be editorial commentary, and the connection they imply between Borghetti and Luxon's resignation should not be treated by an encyclopaedia as fact. The same goes for the article by Matthew Hooten that you've linked separately. Chocmilk03 (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These articles 'look to be...' That's your editorial commentary. There is no 'implication' that Luxon resigned after his dispute with Borghetti. It is stated as a fact - by multiple sources. Kiwimanic (talk) 01:37, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you can not understand that what you're trying to insinuate is a logical fallacy then you have no business editing biographical articles at all. Daveosaurus (talk) 01:44, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get it. The way this detail is reported in the media is not necessarily how it should be reported by us. You are drawing a conclusion from what you describe as a coincidence without knowing anything else. An NBR article dated 10 June 2016, gives a somewhat more informed account of what happened. I won't go into detail here except to quote this: "Despite making a loss on the sale, ... a Craigs Investment Partners analyst...says shareholders will be pleased AIR NZ has sold most of its holding." (The AIR NZ share price went up immediately after the sale.) The only point possibly worth making in this wp article about Luxon, IMO, would be that during his tenure as CEO, AIRNZ disposed of what it considered to be unnecessary assets, including its large stake in Virgin Australia. Anything more should go in the AIRNZ article. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't drawn any conclusion - or insinuated anything. I have simply quoted what the sources say. Even the NBR story you cite (a link would be helpful) say AirNZ made a loss. Whether Virgin was an unnecessary asset is entirely a matter of opinion. WP:NPOV requires articles to present both sides of an issue in order to have balance. So the loss should be reported. Kiwimanic (talk) 02:15, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@kiwimanic. The article is called "Air NZ makes loss of hundreds of millions on sale of Virgin stake" authored by Calida Smylie dated 10 June 2016 in the National Business Review. You can look for it yourself but it might be pay-walled. If you find it, you might want to use it on the Air NZ article, but not here. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:54, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kiwimanic: Luxon was not Air New Zealand. He was the chief executive. If Air NZ made a loss on a sale during his tenure, that isn't necessarily relevant to a biographical article about Luxon. And including it could give undue weight to something that at the end of the day seems to have been a relatively usual business transaction. Chocmilk03 (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Manukau#Requested move 10 October 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Manukau#Requested move 10 October 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 10:11, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of AA Torque

[edit]
Notice

The article AA Torque has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for 5 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Links are not reliable sources. Niche TV show.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Storm

[edit]

Kia ora everyone, I hope you're all having a great day despite the weather that's going on. I've begun work on an article for it, Draft:October 2025 New Zealand storm, but there's way too much to write about than I can do alone so I'd be really grateful if I could some help with it. It's currently missing a huge amount of information and is a bit of a mess organisation-wise so there's a lot of work to do if you're up for it. ―Panamitsu (talk) 07:00, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For a start I'd be inclined to refer to the event as "storms" as there's been more than one - there was one making its way up the country on Tuesday and another one blitzed through Invers just before noon today. Or possibly "weather event"? Daveosaurus (talk) 07:09, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've just changed it to "storms", thanks. ―Panamitsu (talk) 07:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Panamitsu, how notable is this storm if we take a step back and view it in context, of, say, the last 25 years? What has actually happened that makes it stand out from numerous other weather related events? Do we report every heavy downpour or every scrub fire? A few trees got blown down and a poor guy got killed by one in Wlg. For most people the most notable part of this storm was the way it was reported in the media. Sorry to be negative, but my attention in the last couple of days has been on other articles and the way so much unnecessary detail/trivia has been added to them, based on the then newspaper that day, that now has to be thinned out or removed. This storm might be big news yesterday and today but it will be largely forgotten about next week. Why not wait a couple of months and then consider if an article about yesterday's weather is really justified? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you wait until you read tomorrow's news before decrying this week's weather as "a few trees blown down". There has been considerable property damage throughout the South Island today - it's the most significant weather event to hit Invercargill in 15 years and that's just one facet of an island-wide event. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:31, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Today's front page headline in The Press - '"Threat from rising rivers after winds wreak havoc" Now, read that article and what does it say? Basically, nothing. It says there are are warnings being given in case something happens. All Canterbury rivers might flood; a few people spent last night in a community hall just in case something happen, but nothing did in fact happen; all emergency services are busy clearing up branches; the West coast road and some other roads have been closed (the 100th time in the last 30 years?) etc. There are lots of juicy words to attract the readers' attention, like 'wreak havoc' and emergency and inundated. Give it a day or two and such articles will move from the front page and then disappear, until the next rock fall or lightning strike. A suggestion is that instead of spending time repeating what was on last night's news and using the local newspaper or the RNZ website as a source, why not create an article that has more enduring value for this encyclopedia, which could include this latest storm as a one line mention? Something like the third world condition of NZ's preparation for adverse natural events? You know, whenever there is an above average downpour, a stop bank on a river gives way or is breached, due to chronic under funding or poor management? Fire trucks, that are 35 years old, break down on their way to a fire? Or, something to do with global warming that is affecting NZ's weather patterns? If you think about that and come up with a notable specific subject to use for an article, you could have endless hours of fun creating that article, and using much better sources that yesterday's newspaper. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:19, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: In person Wellington Wiki Meetup 10am Saturday 25th October

[edit]

Reminder to folks that the in person Wellington Wiki meet up is being held at 10am this Saturday 25 October. More information and the agenda can be found at this link Wikipedia:Meetup/Wellington/Meetup 25 October 2025 Ambrosia10 (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: In person Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland Wiki Meetup 10am Saturday 25th October

[edit]

Reminder to folks that the in person Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland wiki meet up is being held at 10am this Saturday 25 October, at the Central City Library. More information and the agenda can be found at this link Wikipedia:Meetup/Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland 40 --Prosperosity (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand 2026–2030 Strategy

[edit]

Kia ora from Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand! We’re developing our strategic plan for the next 3–5 years, and we’d love your input.

As a newly recognised chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation, we’re looking ahead to the next few years to think about what we’d like to achieve, and what we need to do in order to make that happen. With a growing membership, we’re now reaching more New Zealand Wikimedians than ever, but we know there are many more out there not on our mailing list. That’s why we’re sharing this message, hoping to reach as many editors across Aotearoa as we can!

How to provide feedback

  • Please use the discussion pages to add your comments, questions and suggestions
  • You can also contact us directly at info@wikimedia.nz
  • We’re also running a regular discussion session after each of our online meetups, if you’d like to chat with WANZ board members about the plan.

Hillmenco (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 measles outbreak

[edit]

Hi there, I am thinking of creating a Draft:2025 New Zealand measles outbreak article due to the recent media coverage. I have added media reports of measles cases to 2025 in New Zealand. Could use the 2019 New Zealand measles outbreak as a guide but will add a timeline section. Will start it later but feel free to volunteer. Andykatib (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it'd be better to create Measles in New Zealand than have individual articles for minor outbreaks. Measles is a ubiquitous disease. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Traumnovelle:, I am open to that idea. Are there any pandemic-related articles we could base this on? Will see what the others think. Andykatib (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tuberculosis in India is an example of a broad topic article on a ubiquitous disease in a country. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this looks like a good model. Could work on it in the future since I have other commitments. Andykatib (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at Category:Measles outbreaks and there were various articles on recent measles outbreaks. Could the Measles resurgence in Europe and Measles resurgence in the United States be possible models for an NZ article? Andykatib (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2025
There is an ongoing process in nz articles of treating day-to-day topics covered by the media as worthy of mention on wikipedia, even to the point of justifying an article of there own. There are plenty of low-grade sources available that help create that impression of importance. We recently had the latest blast of wind viewed as a topic for a new article. I agree with Traumnovelle, expand your scope. I would look even further afield than just measles: why not create an article about the development of vaccination in New Zealand? You would have to do research and use good academic sources, rather than sticking just with newspapers and radio attention grabbing snippets. Such an article would be of far greater worth than a cheap article about the minor October 2025 measles outbreak.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:42, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Roger 8 Roger: for your advice. I agree that it would be better to have an article focusing on the history of measles in New Zealand rather than having multiple articles focusing on various outbreaks. While media driven articles focusing on contemporary events, issues and outbreaks may be interesting for the time, they are not as long lasting as articles that look at phenomena over a longer period. While media sources have been my bread and butter for a long time, I agree that it will be good for me to look academic books and articles. I need to avoid short termism and to focus more on long term articles that stay relevant. The media coverage of the October measles outbreak could probably go in the 2025 in New Zealand but don't warrant an article of their own. I think the New Zealand Wikipedia community will need to have a conversation about having articles covering media worthy events such as storms, pandemics or other newsworthy incidents. We need to clarify this issue in the long term. Cheers. Andykatib 01:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a precedent for this as you have found, and this has many early signs of a major outbreak. I say we should begin the Draft:2025 New Zealand measles outbreak article, and see how the outbreak progresses. I'd say as soon as we pass about 100 cases this will be significant enough to warrant moving to mainspace. I'm happy to help on this article.
Regarding whether measles is "ubiquitous", cases are actually fairly uncommon in NZ, mostly due to good public health surveillance. Unfortunately, our vaccination rate is something like 80%, well below the 95% threshold needed for herd immunity. This is particularly true in Pasifika New Zealander and Māori communities, who are usually the worst affected. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Cloventt:, thanks for supporting the idea of an article on the recent measles outbreak. Will be happy to help you with the draft article. There is some content in 2025 in New Zealand that will be helpful. Best to keep as a draft as the situation develops. Hopefully, our community can reach a consensus on the issue of creating articles in response to media developments like disease outbreaks and weather events. With climate change, weather events like the October storms will probably become more common. Andykatib (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see any reason why you would need consensus to create such articles. If it passes GNG, just create the article. If certain people disagree then they can take it to AfD and argue for it to be deleted later. If we needed consensus before starting articles on current events we’d never write anything interesting. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 23:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, will see what I can do today. Cheers. Andykatib (talk) 00:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also think this measles outbreak is shaping up to be a significant event. Sure, the encyclopedia would benefit from an article on vaccination in NZ and on measles in NZ but articles like that with such a large scope need considerably more time and effort to construct. Just because we lack those topic pages doesn't mean we can't have a more achievable page about this particular outbreak, assuming GNG is met. DrThneed (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have started Draft:2025 New Zealand measles outbreak. It still needs a good deal of work and context. Will work on it over the next few days. Andykatib 06:08, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to respond to Andy's comments about the broader issue of creating articles about recent events. Wikipedia has a number of systemic biases. One of them is recentism. It happens for various reasons: editors write about what they are familiar with; news media sources are readily available online; current affairs are of interest right now; etc. It is harder to write about historical matters that the editor may not be familiar with; material that is not online (e.g. printed books), scholarly material and other secondary sources are not so readily accessible; etc. We're all volunteers who are free to work on what we want to work on, even if it perpetuates systemic biases. I find it hard to criticise someone for writing about notable men (and neglecting notable women), or who write about the dominant culture (and neglect minority or indigenous cultures), or who write about recent events (and neglect older events). Recentism draws in new editors, but it is good if editors, as they gain experience, broaden their editing to, as Andy put it, "focus more on long term articles that stay relevant". I'm not sure that the NZ Wikipedia community needs any new guidelines about all this, but it's good to encourage one another to think about Wikipedia's biases, and whether we can do more to rectify them, rather than just perpetuate them. Certainly there are some NZ editors who do a lot more than me to rectify the biases. Thanks to Roger, Andy et al for their thoughts earlier. Nurg (talk) 02:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to say that this is a really good comment. ―Panamitsu (talk) 04:34, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @DrThneed:, @Nurg: and @Panamitsu: for your feedback. Appreciate the encouragement. Andykatib (talk) 04:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me second Panamitsu. Very nice thoughts from Nurg! Schwede66 05:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, a good post. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dare I say "Nurgets of wisdom"?-Gadfium (talk) 05:50, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Review page please Maungaraupi Homestead

[edit]

Hey, my article has been unreviewed for some days now, if anyone who could look at it, I would be highly appreciative. If there are any issues with it please ping me. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where are your secondary sources? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Heritage New Zealand report is a secondary source Traumnovelle (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why not look for sources of William Swainson, that will probably contain information about this building? His article has lots of good sources to use. Other indirect connections with this building will probably reveal further information. You seem to have only one usuable source now. Also, I would question saying he was 'fluent in maori'. Fluent means fluent, ie near native speaker level. A quick look at his article shows it is highly unlikely he would have reached that level. 'Reasonably competent' perhaps, but not fluent. The primary source you use does not say fluent anyway. His 'fluency in Maori' is not the same as 'fluent in maori'. My fluency in maori allows me to buy a cup of coffee in a maori cafe' (by pointing at the picture on the wall). Fluent is fluent: fluency in something can mean anything. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:30, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It reads like it has been partly LLM-generated. There is a number of puff words that LLMs like to use. Is this basically just an LLM summary of the country estate website? David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 04:00, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say there's a large overuse of comma bracketing, which drags on a few sentences and can make the article difficult to follow at times. While this is not grammatically incorrect and they aren't run on sentences, I would suggest shortening and splitting up some of these longer sentences for the sake of clarity and readability. Mrastron (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Science Photo Competition 2025 for Australia and New Zealand is now open

[edit]

Upload your best science photos to the competition page on Wikimedia Commons between 1 November and 15 December 2025. There will be cash prizes from Wikimedia Australia and Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand awarded to the winners of each category.

There will also be an online FAQ session with Gnangarra and Mike Dickison for those who want to find out more - Focus on Science: Your guide to the Wiki Science photography competition — Thursday 13 November 2025, 12pm AEDT. See the event page on Humanitix or register on-wiki for details.

The Wiki Science Competition is an annual international photography contest organised by the Wikimedia community, inviting participants to create and upload science-related images to Wikimedia Commons under a free licence. This contest promotes the visualisation and free exchange of scientific images. Hillmenco (talk) 05:11, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Aotearoa New Zealand online meetup

[edit]

The Aotearoa New Zealand online meetup is happening tomorrow Sunday the 9th of November from midday until 2pm. The agenda and link to the meeting can be found here. All are welcome! Ambrosia10 (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Operation Chastise#Requested move 27 October 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Operation Chastise#Requested move 27 October 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 01:59, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weird new user names

[edit]

I've been seeing a lot of users called something like "~2025-xxxxx-yy" coming up, and wondering if they are AI bots or something... does anyone know what's going on? See e.g. this ActiveUsers query — Jon (talk) 03:46, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They’re temporary accounts. They’ve replaced anonymous IP editors. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 03:47, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:Temporary accounts if you want more information.-Gadfium (talk) 03:54, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all, it seems I missed the memo! — Jon (talk) 04:18, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sign up to The Signpost. Some of the articles are quite informative. Schwede66 07:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Time on Earth

[edit]

Time on Earth has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_Zealand_Wikipedians%27_notice_board&oldid=1321682909"