Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut:
WT:NZ

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand page.
Archives: 1, 2
Archive
Archives


Kia ora, while this talk page discusses WikiProject New Zealand, a New Zealand Wikipedian notice board does exist. It may be more relevant to place any comments concerning New Zealand articles (or Wiki-events) there. If you are asking for New Zealand opinion on AfD, then try Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/New Zealand. To seek New Zealand Wikipedian help on editing a new (New Zealand) article, then try Wikipedia:New articles (New Zealand). Many thanks. --Midnighttonight please tell me off for procrastinating on my essay! 08:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Murder of Liam Ashley

This needs some expansion, but I know this was a major controversy in NZ. If anyone from NZ or more familiar with NZ has more info about Murder of Liam Ashley they are welcome to contribute.. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I had been wondering whether to nominate it for deletion, as it's my understanding that individual murders are not considered notable. However, looking for a guideline about this, I found Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts), which is a proposed guideline. I don't dispute that the murder received significant nationwide news coverage and it meets this proposed guideline. However, a substantial proportion of murders in New Zealand receive such coverage, and few have articles. I am concerned that such articles are Recentism, but I'm not sure what to do about it.-gadfium 00:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
No, the reason why the case is notable is due to the political fallout - I linked to several articles that explain how the prison system was criticized. Since lead to a criticism of government policy, it is notable. - The fact that Ashley was placed with a guy like Baker was criticized, so I'll add that too. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll second deletion. Killing sprees may be notable, but single murders aren't (though they may merit a mention on the killer's page, if they are notable enough). IdiotSavant (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't the best remedy for recentism be expanding our coverage of older cases, rather than deleting notable newer ones? Maybe a List of murders in New Zealand could provide a useful framework. -- Avenue (talk) 03:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
That presumes recent murders are notable. They're not. IdiotSavant (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I wouldn't say that murders are inherently notable (at least, not the the standard required here). Although they often receive national coverage here, I think that's primarily because this is a small country. Having said that, I think the Liam Ashley case is notable because of its unusual circumstances. --Helenalex (talk) 04:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I found this http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0612/S00213.htm - this lead to a political controversy, so it is notable. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Let me clarify what I meant. It is common for lists to omit unimportant cases that fail some criterion. For example, there is only one NZ wind farm in the global list of wind farms, because most of ours are too small to qualify. I did not mean to suggest a list covering all NZ murders, just those that might reasonably deserve an article. This presumes that we can find a suitable criterion that include the most important cases, and not too many others. It would probably only add value beyond Category:Murder in New Zealand if there are important NZ murders we do not have articles on yet. -- Avenue (talk) 08:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, I've just moved Mona Blades to Mona Blades case and Kirsa Jensen to Kirsa Jensen case. Does anyone know of other instances where we (against guidelines) have articles on the victim rather than the case? dramatic (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Harvey and Jeanette Crewe , There seems to be a lot of dup cats over under Category:Crime in New Zealand. ADifferent cases are under the perp, the victum or the top lvel cats and some are in more than 2. - SimonLyall (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merging pages

I'm a NZ member of the Milhist project, where they have a lot of talent with page/board changes etc. Would it be useful to merge this page with the NZ Wikipedians' notice board, with all archives being maintained? I think some of the people over there could do that quite easily, if it was thought a good idea. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the NZWNB and the wikiproject have a lot of overlap and a merger would be a useful simplification.-gadfium 07:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I've never understood what the difference between the pages is supposed to be. --Helenalex (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. You might argue that the notice board is for the more important things, but this project doesn't get all that much discussion and it's too much trouble to watch both (I've only ever watched this one, and even on-and-off at that). Richard001 (talk) 08:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archeology in Polynesia

Good evening! As I know New Zealand is one of the countries whose population pays a lot of attention to the history of Oceania. For example, there are a lot of museums in your country devoted specially to this region. But at present there is a great need in free photos of some important archeological sites, archaeological evidences that were found there (for example, photos of Lapita pottery from Samoa and other places in Oceania). It would be great if some free photos were downloaded to Wikimedia Commons. Best Regards, Переход Артур, talk 19:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment: Too many top importance articles

I think we have way too many articles in Category:Top-importance New Zealand articles. A lot of these don't even qualify for high importance, IMO. For example, politics of New Zealand is probably worthy of top importance, but not individual elections. This category should probably only have 10-20 articles or so; the ones that are of critical importance and most urgent in getting to FA class. It wouldn't actually be a bad idea to recommend discussing things first before adding to this category (though people will still do it anyway, of course). Richard001 (talk) 08:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitely agreed on the elections articles - I would rate most of them as mid with the five or six most recent elections as high. dramatic (talk) 09:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that proposals for how to rate articles should be added to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand/Assessment, as I've done for geographical articles. How do you decide which elections are important? Which politicians are important?-gadfium 09:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I've just rated 1893 as 'high' (universal suffrage) and all the other 19th century elections as mid. The next 'high' would be 1935, I think - it ushered in a new era of politics which was the basis for the next 50 years. dramatic (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Toyota; I've just gone through and classified them all (other than 2008) as "mid". Would 1984 or 1999 also be considered "high" then?IdiotSavant (talk) 11:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
One of the criteria for rating elections would involve whether the major party making up the government changed, and the most recent election is more important than most of the previous ones because it shaped the present government. The upcoming election is also relatively important, especially in an election year. The current year does affect how importance recent election articles are. I like dramatic's idea that certain elections had extra importance due to a change in the political era resulting. Would 1996 be considered such an election, because it was the first MMP election?
I agree that no single election (so far) should be in the top importance category, and that reducing the number of top-level articles is desirable.
I suggest the various articles on wars, military and battles be reduced from top to high-level, leaving only Military history of New Zealand as top level. The following articles would drop to high-level: Australian and New Zealand Army Corps, Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (army corps), Battle of Gallipoli, New Zealand Army, New Zealand in the Vietnam War, New Zealand land wars. Perhaps the New Zealand Defence Force article, currently high-level, should go up to top-level.-gadfium 20:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. - Shudde talk 20:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed with the exception of New Zealand land wars - I think that's a major part of our history. dramatic (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Re:Elections, I'd say there are very few that would rate as high, though 1984 would be one of them (that wasn't just an election, it had the makings of a major constitutional crisis), as would 1893. A case could perhaps be made for 1999, but I'd rate it slightly less high than the other two. I can't think of any others that should be rated high. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that due to the coarse nature of the importance ratings it may be possible to have articles that are more important than others while still being, say, mid importance. Regarding land wars, I would say 'high'. New Zealand/(Human) history of New Zealand/Land wars. That's two steps down in the hierarchy. Richard001 (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Student Life articles

I have merged Student Life New Zealand into Student Life (university ministry), and plan to do the same with Student Life Australia. The article they are being merged into seems to lack notability too, as I have indicated with the template, and might itself be merged into the apparently notable Campus Crusade for Christ. Nobody seems to be watching them, and they were all created by one-edit wonders, so I need some more feedback. Maybe I should take them to AFD (even though the content is technically being merged) to get some? Richard001 (talk) 03:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd support a move to AFD them. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 04:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Draft Guidelines for Lists of companies by country - Feedback Requested

Within WikiProject Companies I am trying to establish guidelines for all Lists of companies by country, the implementation of which would hopefully ensure a minimum quality standard and level of consistency across all of these related but currently disparate articles. The ultimate goal is the improvement of these articles to Featured List status. As a WikiProject that currently has one of these lists within your scope, I would really appreciate your feedback! You can find the draft guidelines here. Thanks for your help as we look to build consensus and improve Wikipedia! - Richc80 (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regional Councils

Is it time to create articles for all of the regional councils? A page for the Canterbury Regional Council has been created. As shown by the Canterbury Regional Council article the is sufficient information on the geographical region and the political entity that is in charge of it. Note that the Canterbury region (Canterbury, New Zealand) article has an infobox for the regional council that should go to the Canterbury Regional Council article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that regional councils are inherently notable, so if you want to create the pages, go for it. --Helenalex (talk) 10:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Māori textiles and weaving - help needed

I've started a rescue job on Māori traditional textiles after someone redirected it to Phormium - I think this should be one of the important articles on New Zealand culture. However, most references are offline, and I hope there are people more expert/scholarly in that field who can help. We also badly need an article on Tukutuku panels and possibly articles on some of the other main woven artifacts (e.g. kete). Talking of tukutuku, are the images on http://whakaahua.maori.org.nz/tukutuku.htm GDFL-compatible? (no copyright statement, request that an acknowledgement would be appreciated, implication that images are for re-use). dramatic (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ad

Hey, im just wondering if anybody thinks that we should create an ad for the WikiProject to be put on Template:Wikipedia ads to advertise the project. I would do it myself, but im no good with animation or much coding at all, so if theres anyone who would be willing to create one, that would be great. There is a guide available here for anyone who's interested. Taifarious1 07:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Old government buildings

We have a duplicate at Old Government Buildings and Government Buildings (Wellington, New Zealand). My inclination is to take the infobox and the information from the second one and put it into the first, because the first one is better structured and has a better name - 'government buildings' sounds more like the ones that the government are still in. But then I wrote most of Old Government Buildings, so I'm probably biased. --Helenalex (talk) 08:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it makes sense to put it in the first article, i don't think bias comes into it, more like common sense. I don't think there will be much opposition but I agree with you proposition. Taifarious1 09:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Given that the GBWNZ article goes as far to call use the name "Old Government Buildings", this is highly logical. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 10:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Henalex, but I was wondering if Old Government Buildings should cover both the Wellington ones and the Christchurch ones (Southeast corner of Cathedral square, now turned into apartments and a restaurant called OGB)? dramatic (talk) 10:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The official name of the building is "Government Buildings". Wellingtonians often refer to it as "The Old Government Building". Matt (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe the article could even be "Government Buildings Historic Reserve" or "Old Government Buildings Historic Reserve" (http://www.doc.govt.nz/templates/page.aspx?id=34143). This would exclude the Chch ones. Matt (talk) 23:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps 'Old Government Buildings, Wellington'? There are probably structures referred to as 'Old Government Buildings' all over the world. --Helenalex (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)