Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

Attention all Wellingtonians

Next Wednesday (21 July) there will be a parade for All Whites through central Wellington. Might be a good chance to snap a few photos (John Key will be there too, maybe other MPs as well...) [1] Adabow(complain) 09:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Anybody in particular we need free images of? --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 10:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Anybody would be great, but some notable players without images are Winston Reid and Ivan Vicelich. For MPs without images see this page. Adabow(complain) 10:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The article says Kerry Prendergast will be there also. XLerate (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

just curious, how can taking and adding images not be original research? is wp's need for images greater than the need for verification when it comes to images? ie how does any wiki editor verify that any particyular image is what it purports to be? why are images treated differently to text contributions? please enlighten me..mozasaur (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You can verify the likeness from reliable sources, for example:[2][3][4][5]. XLerate (talk) 03:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. It would not be me (or any other editor) saying 'this is a photo of X, you can trust me on that', said editor would be saying 'this is a photo of X, as verifiable by comparing and contrasting it to RS y'. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 11:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Original images have a partial exemption from the original research policy. See WP:OI.-gadfium 20:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

that's good, I dont recall ever seeing any such verification and reference in practice, so maybe that's a new habit to be established here, or maybe i missed it. thanks guys, I do have suitable pics of local and central govt people, that I can grant permissions for, just takes time and will. mozasaur (talk) 02:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Verification request - Afghan biscuit

Could someone with a stash of printed newspapers please verify NZ Herald - Strange but True 1 July 2010 p56 as a source for the origin of Afghan biscuit. If correct, I'd love to know what the Herald's source was, because everything online says the origin is unknown or gives other theories like Australian camel drivers. dramatic (talk) 03:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I have access to the NZ Herald online through a library database. They show full pages, rather than just individual articles, so I should easily be able to get to it. The problem is that their pagination does not include a page 56. It goes from A1 to A20, B1 to B15 and so on. Any more clues that you can give? Schwede 66 04:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

See the article - I reverted an anon's edits for what seemed a far-fetched unreferenced change. They restored it with an offline reference. And I'm cynical enough to not trust that, hence my asking here. Does the Herald even have a regular "Strange but True" column? I guess it would be in the features or entertainment sections if it does. dramatic (talk) 05:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It's bollocks. Correct, no page 56 in the Herald, and it doesn't have Strange But True column. Moriori (talk) 05:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Apparently the NZ Herald does have a "Strange but True" regular thing, looking at the website, but doing a control+F for 'afghan' on [6] doesn't turn up anything, and there doesn't seem to have been any "Strange but True" published on the first. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 05:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been buying/reading the Herald daily for yonks and have never seen a "Strange but True" in it. I'm going to ring them right now and complain!!!!. Moriori (talk) 05:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL. That anon is doing some really good drugs that bring out the creative side in a person (albeit a rather quirky creativity). Had a good laugh. But added that page to my watchlist, so that you don't get into edit warring. Schwede 66 05:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like they reached the guilty/paranoid stage and self-reverted (more or less - they left out the bit about the origin being unknown).dramatic (talk) 07:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Soulan Pownceby

Can someone knowledgeable on Wikipedia etiquette please take a look at the Soulan Pownceby article and history? Some person or persons is replacing the article with one that delivers a very different viewpoint. Undoubtedly, this article could do with improvement, but these edits don't seem to be WP:NPOV. Thanks. --Pakaraki (talk) 09:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged it with a {{multiple issues}} tag as it violates several guidelines which I've mentioned on the talk page. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Rules regarding Gumboot throwing competition

I would like to be able to find a set of rules, eg inside area,outside area. size of throwing area, classes in which competitors compete, eg childrens,womens, mens, mixed, doubles ectra I also believe that the gumboot throwing day has been changed to bi annualy and from easter to October , is this correct? Is Taihape the only place gumboot throwing is competed for. Can rules for gumboot throwing be standardised. Who canbe contacted for further information thank you Faye McPherson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.231.134 (talk) 02:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I've removed your personal details to reduce the chances of spam emails. The proper place to ask questions like this is at the Reference desk, where you'll find people with very good searching skills, but you may get an answer here from someone with local knowledge.-gadfium 06:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of Sovereign States regarding NZ's, Cook Islands' and Niue's political status

The discussion is located here. The debate is over whether the Cook Islands and Niue and sovereign states and should be included on the list. It has also been suggested that a few pages be created to this end to explain the situation, namely pages with these possible title; Political status of the Cook Islands, Political status of Niue, Political status of states in free association with New Zealand. Regards. Outback the koala (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

1984 New Zealand constitutional crisis

This article, where the chronology of one week is very important, has a mess of date inaccuracies.

It refers to an event taking place on Sunday 17 July. 17 July was a Tuesday, the Sunday was the 15th.
It dates the devaluation as 20 July, but PA reports on it are dated Wednesday 18 July.

I can't repair the article myself as I don't know when forex markets were suspended and reopened relative to the devaluation. Does anyone have a book, or newspaper microfiche access? dramatic (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

get a copy of Barry Gustafson, His way: a biography of Robert Muldoon, Auckland University Press, 2000, see: pp. 384-397, Chapter 22, "The Post-Election Currency Crisis". I am sure your local library can locate it for you. Good luck.Rick570 (talk) 07:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

19th century history

I've raised the question about what to do over the recent anon edits of articles such as New Zealand land wars, Musket Wars and Parihaka at the Administrators' noticeboard. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#19th century New Zealand history.-gadfium 01:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Photos from Canterbury Earthquake

Photos of damage from the 2010_Canterbury_earthquake (under wikipedia compatible license) would be really great if people can take some or know of friends with them. - SimonLyall (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I've just added one to the article. Schwede 66 00:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou for that. the article is looking pretty good now. Great Job to all those who contributed - SimonLyall (talk) 08:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

John Key

The John Key article has recently been made a GA, and also received a peer review. Let's be patriotic, and try and push it to FA. What needs to be done has be outlined in the PR. Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought 'patriotic' would be pov. but maybe I'm wrong about that too.moza (talk) 13:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a noticeboard, not an article.Adabow (talk · contribs) 19:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It's patriotic in the sense of trying to have excellent articles about our country - documenting information that may be good or bad. The "featured" status of an article is a statement about the article not the person. A featured article must represent all points of view on that person - there is no way that a purely pro-Key or a purely anti-Key article could become featured.--121.98.159.158 (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for coming across that way. I meant being 'patriotic' by getting it up to FA, not by praising or rubbishing our PM. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

its ok. I'm clear about the difference between articles and projects, etc. The term Patriotic is also fairly clearly understood by all. I wasnt intentionally saying anything about the article itself. I wanted to explore the pov about the relative importance of articles, ie would a kiwi article be considered more important than an Australian article, because it was kiwi? it's treading fine lines, but if we approve pov about article quality and status, then isnt that sailing close to the pov about the content? It would seem that a range of views, from clearly objective (scientifically proven compliance with rules) - across to clearly subjective (strong attitudes involving humans varied interpretation of the rules), is likely to always include some degree of pov. I think that the seemingly endless discussions about compliance on wikipedia support my view, as a 'nonpov scientific approach' would be considered to be the acceptable approach. It possibly worthy of note, that in a court of law, even the scientists are asked to express a considered 'opinion' (pov). The range of science debates out there in the real world indicates that something is 'rotten in the state of Denmark' to such an 'objective' approach to reality, so where is the 'truth' here in this space? It is also worth considering that even multiple trials of murder can be overturned by different judges in different circumstances, so pov seems to be an inherent component of our processes, even if we deny it vehemently. I also suggest that skewing this discussion toward pov about content when there was no suggestion of that in the original question, is some evidence of my subject. In my experience (pov) 'second guessing' any hidden agendas, even if they exist, might not be the most efficient method of arriving at a useful answer. What is the objective measurement used to decide importance for any article, a quality nonpov article about ACT might be of more interest, popularity, and usefulness (pov) to the world right now, for FA purposes. (I think that the answer might be given as 'consensus' but that's also a hard one to pin down, and is prone to change rapidly when there is a small sample size of opinions that are used to make a judgement from, also changing from time to time.. please lets explore that concept in a separate discussion though.)mozasaur (talk) 03:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Throughout 2010, many Wikipedia editors have worked hard to halve the number of unreferenced biographical articles (UBLPs) from more than 52,000 in January to under 26,000 now. The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons has assisted in many ways, including helping to setup a bot, which runs daily, compiling lists of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Unreferenced BLPs. Currently you have approximately 148 articles to be referenced. A list of all projects that are being tracked can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/WikiProjects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. We've done a lot, but we still have a long way to go. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 13:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

For comparison, we had 458 NZ-related UBLPs back in mid February. The number remaining has been fluctuating between roughly 140 and 160 since mid May.[7] --Avenue (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a subset available of the NZ uBLPs of politicians, and that list is down to just over 20 now. See Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/politics/unsourced BLPs. Schwede 66 19:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

That initial quick drop and then maintaining around the same point mirrors lots of the other projects - I'm not convinced that the referencing effort has diminished, more that the tagging of old articles has increased. You can also use the WP:CatScan tool to generate lists of whatever interests you - for example, this search generates a list of the 13 articles which are both unreferenced and in Category:New Zealand musicians or it's subcats. And I thought you only had Dave Dobbyn and the Finn brothers! 47 sportspeople, 8 actors and 7 academics, 7 TV personalities are other examples. Any subcat of Category:New_Zealand_people can be tried, but some of the bigger ones might not work as CatScan limits the number of subcats it looks at.The-Pope (talk) 23:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

An update: the number has been slowly and steadily declining since late September, and is now down to 92. --Avenue (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Another update: there are now 47 NZ-related uBLPs, so once a year is up I expect we'll be well below 10% of the original number. Considering many new ones have probably been identified during the year, this seems like good progress. --Avenue (talk) 07:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

When does a person count as a "New Zealander"?

I was looking through Category:New Zealand composers thinking about creating a List of New Zealand composers, and I found that a few of them were not NZ-born. Is there a defined standard for inclusion? sonia♫ 11:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

For a somewhat relevant discussion, see Talk:Kiwi (people)#Need a kiwi be born in New Zealand?. I would say that any person who is either born in New Zealand or who spends a reasonable proportion of their notable activity in NZ should be in the New Zealand category tree. All three of the people you link to were composing in NZ.-gadfium 20:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

People from Christchurch

[8] - free concert in North Hagley Park. If you go along, please get some photos for WP. Any would be helpful, but currently The Exponents, Dave Dobbyn, The Bats, The Feelers, Dukes and J.Williams are without images. Thanks, Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

David Garrett (politician)

As an IP pointed out, this article is pretty unbalanced and reads like an attack page with almost nothing said that is positive about him. While he may not be the country's favourite character, this is not the way we should write BLP articles. Any help cleaning it up would be appreciated.--Anon 22:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I've added a section Achievements (it was hard to write, I have to admit). Have a look whether this balances the article sufficiently. Schwede 66 01:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:New Zealand sport by year

I have created Category:New Zealand sport by year and some subcats. I will need a hand to complete this re-categorisation. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Good idea - I've been thinking about adding these cats for a while, while I've been trying to extend all the Chatham Cup articles (which is a long slog, since there are virtually no records... but the way I'm going I could end up writing a book about it!) Grutness...wha? 03:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

All the thinly populated categories up to 1950 are now done -just the bigger ones from there on to do. Grutness...wha? 04:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I have set up a whole bunch of cats. They now need populating. AWB is handy if there are a lot of articles to do. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Umm, I think the plural of "sports" is generally used for categories of this type. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The only other country which has categories of this sort is the US, and they tend to use "sports" where we use "sport" -"New Zealand sports", to my anglo-kiwi ears, sounds like sports which are specifically New Zealand ones (golfcross?), whereas "New Zealand sport" sounds more like sport in New Zealand. Grutness...wha? 09:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Done :) Grutness...wha? 08:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed move at Talk:Karori Wildlife Sanctuary

Given that the place has been renamed for over a year and that ghastly new name doesn't seem to have gone away, someone has suggested the article be renamed. Wander on over to comment. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Māori task force

I've set up a WPNZ Māori task force. If you'd like to join, there are instructions how to do so on that page. It's rather early days, but I'm sure there's lots of interesting collaboration possible with that project. Schwede 66 08:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The new Auckland & its mayoralty

The election is over and the new mayor is known. Should we now not treat Auckland as a continuing entity with greatly expanded borders. 20 years ago (and before) there were also substantial changes (eg Newmarket Borough, Mt Eden, Mt Roskill, Onehunga etc etc) but it was still Auckland that continued. Therefore should we treat Brown as the first mayor of Auckland? I dont think so.Rick570 (talk) 07:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't remember the 1989 changes very well, although I was an Auckland resident that year (I was travelling for work a lot, and not much following NZ politics). Our article Mayor of Auckland City treats the mayoralty as continuous over that change. My feeling is that the Auckland Council is a sufficiently different body from the Auckland City Council that we can say that Len Brown is the first major, and certainly he is not the successor to John Banks. The edits to his article, and the split out of Mayor of Auckland seem to indicate most people feel likewise. It is certainly worth having a discussion on the differences in our treatment of the 1989 changes and the 2010 changes. The discussion should probably be held at Talk:Mayor of Auckland or Talk:Auckland Council.-gadfium 19:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Gadfium that the discussion belongs to Talk:Mayor of Auckland or Talk:Auckland Council. Schwede 66 20:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion now at Talk:Mayor of Auckland. Nurg (talk) 00:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I have opened a related discussion, about what to do with the geog articles, at Talk:Auckland#Article for the Auckland super city.

Mayors of Nelson and W(h)anganui

I've started an article on Mayors of Nelson and the list is complete up to 1906, but has some serious gaps from then on. Has anybody got access to some local history book that can fill the gaps? I'd be grateful for any help, but please state your source, as the article is otherwise fully referenced. If you don't know how to format references, just put something in there in whatever form or shape and I'll tidy it up. Thanks heaps!

The other article listing mayors that has some serious gaps is Mayor of Wanganui. Again, a walk to the local library might tidy things up - shouldn't be too hard. Schwede 66 19:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Many Manukau City links go to wrong article

Manukau was formerly a redirect to Manukau City. A new article has been created at Manukau about a suburb of the former city. More than 100 articles that used to link through the redirect to Manukau City now incorrectly link to this new article about a mere industrial suburb. I guess someone (I'm not volunteering) will have to fix them all, unless we can revert the article on the grounds of non-notability, or just because it has created a mess. Add any comments at Talk:Manukau. Nurg (talk) 06:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed naming convention changes

There are two proposals under discussion for changes and additions to the naming conventions applicable to articles on places in New Zealand:

Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(New_Zealand)#Draft_change_to_conventions - bringing the convention into line with general guidelines that geographic features should use parentheses for disambiguation rather than a comma.
Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(New_Zealand)#Draft_addition_to_conventions - formulating a policy on dual-language official names.

Input is welcome dramatic (talk) 05:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

New Zealand MPs

I think we have managed to have at least a stub page for every New Zealand MP on Wikipedia. See the note on the politics talk page. Please leave a note there if you do spot any gaps anywhere. Schwede 66 05:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

National Library images

Natlib has a Commons page at Flickr with images that have no known copyright restrictions. We should have a rummage through them to find some usable stuff. Maybe whould we grab them all and dump them in WikiMedia Commons? Should we have a yarn with the blokes at Natlib to formalise something? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, nice find! It would probably be a good idea to ask Natlib if they are free, as they do only say no known copyright restrictions. But they probably are free, so chucking them all into Commons is a good idea. Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Some care is probably still needed, because whoever uploads them will need to select a suitable license/copyright tag for each photo, and Commons has to respect US law as well. It's not immediately clear to me why this photo of Willis St around 1940 would be out of copyright in either country, for instance. --Avenue (talk) 02:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Unidentified photographers, or photographers died before 1960. I suppose that the NatLib are reliable and honest, so they are probably right... Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand works of unknown authorship lose protection 50 years after first authorised publication. The date of publication isn't clear to me here. I'm sure they are generally reliable, but they don't seem to clearly explain the thought process behind their "no known copyright restrictions" notice, and reconstructing it may not always be easy or even possible from the information they make available. --Avenue (talk) 03:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

A similar conversation happened in 2008 when they started that account. We have already sorted through and uploaded some of the older (as in uploaded in 2008) images. dramatic (talk) 03:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Great stuff. I've ~~started processing~~ processed the Premiers. ~~I've gone as far as Frederick Whitaker on page 12.~~ Schwede 66 05:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

you know about http://toolserver.org/~bryan/flickr/upload ? dramatic (talk) 09:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Um, yes. But I've done it by hand now. Never mind; quite a few of the articles look much better now! Schwede 66 09:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Land tenure/ownership in New Zealand article

A topic area that is very much under represented in WP is land tenure or land ownership for the various countries. There is sufficient material for a Land tenure in New Zealand article:

tribal ownership by Maori
Treaty issues
CAFCA
Save out Farms
public vs private vs Maori land
public access and paper roads

etc. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Pike River Mine accident

Pike River Mine accident page is here. Needs some work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onco p53 (talk • contribs) 11:57 pm, 20 November 2010

Martyn "Bomber" Bradbury

I'd like some feedback on recent edits to Martyn "Bomber" Bradbury. I have resisted anon edits over the last few months which I believe to be POV. I think it's time for more opinions.-gadfium 05:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Reverted edits, and warned IP for failing to meet WP:NPOV. In the future I would instantly revert anything like this, as they are referencing a blog site. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I knew "Bomber" (a name he really earned because of his flatulence) when he was the editor of Craccum magazine at the University of Auckland. Due to my personal association with Martyn Bradbury, I shall not personally edit Martyn "Bomber" Bradbury, per WP:CONFLICT.

What I will do is issue a caution: while I agree with most of Martyn Bradbury's politics, I cannot deny that it is almost impossible to write a truthful article about him without appearing to breach WP:NPOV - he has no scruples when it comes to pushing his agenda/politics. I vividly remember him writing various provocative (racist, sexist, anti-poor) letters to the editor while he was the editor of Craccum and then signing those letters with the names (or known pseudonyms) of well-known campus representatives of the ACT and National and NZ First parties. I cannot imagine that an accurate article about Martyn Bradbury would appear anything but "opinionated". Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 05:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I remember him as very self-promoting (far moreso than most Craccum editors, myself included) and seriously doubt his article would ever be fully NPOV. It's an unfortunate consequence of the "ïf you can cite it and it's not defamatory, you can use it" policy. The smaller the article the more NPOV it is likely to be, but obviously I won't be editing it (knowing it exists is bad enough without looking at it!). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, a truly accurate article about Martyn Bradbury would necessarily look like an attack piece. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 06:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Portal News

I have just updated Portal:New Zealand/News after seeing that nothing had happened to it in two months! It would be good if everyone can be more involved, updating the portal with bigg-ish news items. It is a featured portal, after all, and should be cared for more than it is... Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

"should be cared for more than it is..." is an interesting pov in this space.mozasaur (talk) 02:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Why do you take issue with everything? It needs more care and attention to stay up-to-date. What's POV about that? Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Districts of New Zealand

I have populated Category:Districts of New Zealand by creating categories for ALL districts except those that are unitary authorities. It had only been partially done. The subcats will now need populating. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I've created categories for the missing Carterton and Central Otago Districts, and added the existing Masterton category. We should probably also do something with the categories for the superceded Papakura, Franklin, and Rodney districts, as well as the North Shore City and Waitakere City categories. I'd be inclined to rename the last two, e.g. to Category:North Shore, New Zealand and Category:West Auckland respectively, and delete the other three (along with the misnamed Category:Otago District, which I didn't see before creating the Central Otago one). --Avenue (talk) 11:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah yeah, I didn't consider the implications of the changes in Auckland. I have put Category:Otago District up for deletion. The contents of Category:Districts of New Zealand should be an accurate reflection of what actually exists. I will start a Districts of New Zealand article to document stuff including the recent changes. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The File:NZTerritorialAuthorities.png over at Commons, which shows regions and districts, will need updating. Vardion, the original creator, is inactive at present. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

We could rename and merge existing categories for areas of Auckland as North Shore, West, South, and Central Auckland (not sure if there's really a concept of "East Auckland"; it seems to be lumped in with South Auckland usually), but these areas are not well defined. Alternatively we could create categories for the new wards, which would have the benefit that the boundaries are clearly defined. A description of the wards is at the Auckland Council website, with a map of each available by linking on the name.-gadfium 20:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Lets go for a Category:Auckland City wards at this stage? Subcats for the individual wards may not be needed yet?. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Why not just Category:Auckland wards? :) Mattlore (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Because that's ambiguous. There are lots of wards in the various hospitals in Auckland. Sure, most of them would get deleted under the notability requirements, but the potential is still there. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

If such a category is created, it should be titled Category:Auckland Council wards, not Category:Auckland City wards. --Avenue (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of where to categorise not the wards themselves, but the suburbs and other features currently in Category:Rodney District, Category:North Shore City and Category:Waitakere City. There is Category:Suburbs of Auckland but it would be nice to preserve some geographical categories for small areas than the whole Auckland region.-gadfium 22:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right, renaming the Rodney one would be better than deleting it. I'm not sure that all the wards are as useful as the Rodney one. For instance, the Waitemata and Gulf ward is an odd mix. --Avenue (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

On Commons, I have retained the old Districts under a "Former districts of New Zealand" category. They would only contain material specific to the olden-times district (Council- and historyrelated material, which admittedly is limited) while the other material is moved to the relevant villages/places in the Auckland Region categories or the suburbs categories. Ingolfson (talk) 08:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

East Polynesian contact with mainland Australia

Please see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#East Polynesian contact with mainland Australia.-gadfium 19:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)