Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Auckland suburb boundaries

Anybody have a definitive map showing where one suburb ends and another starts? Even 'semi-official' sources like Wises online maps and similar maps don't seem to agree on it sometimes. MadMaxDog 12:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but there may not actually be any definitive boundaries. This NZ Herald article from 2005 says that except for Wellington, no councils issue exact definitions — I don't know whether that's still the case, but the lack of any easy-to-find maps suggests that it might be. (The review the article mentions has a website, but I'm not sure if anything has been passed into law yet). -- Vardion 20:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That was true until recently: according to this page on the NZ Post website, describing their Address & Postcode Finder, "The standardised suburb name is either the official name defined by the Council or, where Council doesn’t define suburbs, the most commonly used name. New Zealand Post has worked closely with the NZ Fire Service, Quotable Value and other government agencies to develop a common use definition of suburbs in urban areas where councils have not defined these." So, I guess that now counts as an "official" definition, but the boundaries aren't available for free from anywhere, as far as I know, and they definitely don't match up to Census Area Unit names and boundaries. --Tom, 14:00 3 July 2007

Statistics New Zealand do have hard lines, although I can't find the link to it on their website. Telecom are quite diligent about this as well. Everyone on the other side of my street is listed in the phonebook as being in a different suburb. --Limegreen 23:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a webmap to StatsNZ areas [1]. Not always fabulously intuitive, however. What I'd call Devonport (and including Cheltenham and Vauxhall) is "Mt Victoria". Belmont is "Seacliff". But it does provide a clear limit on "Bayswater". PPS: It seems to work better in IE than Firefox :( --Limegreen 23:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The StatsNZ boundaries are for "Area Units",[2] which are defined primarily for statistical purposes. They are roughly the size of a suburb (in urban areas), and sometimes agree with the typical delineation of particular suburbs, but often don't. I recall Telecom's definitions can sometimes be a bit weird too. I don't believe there are any official suburb boundaries for Auckland. -- Avenue 04:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That definition does include the phrase "Area units of main or secondary urban areas generally coincide with suburbs or parts thereof. " My experience (Dunedin) suggests that in fact the boundaries are very much in line with where you'd expect suburbs to be. --Limegreen 05:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Often the boundaries are reasonably in line with my expectations, especially where the divisions are fairly clear, but it's certainly not always the case. (This is based on my North Shore experience.) I gather that Stats NZ like to keep their area units fairly similar in (population) size, giving them problems with larger suburbs like Takapuna or Glenfield. This also leads them to overstate the size of smaller suburbs such as Westlake, or simply omit them (e.g. Cheltenham, as you noted). So I wouldn't be happy using them as a definitive source of suburb boundaries. By the way, your link to online maps gives the 2001 boundaries. Stats NZ say these underwent a extensive review in 2006. The 2006 boundary maps are online here (and work fine in Firefox with JavaScript enabled). -- Avenue 11:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. I coulnd't find the 2006 data maps yesterday, and I prefer the functionality of the 2001 webmap, especially if you don't know the name of the area unit (e.g., searching for devonport gives no hits). There should be a link to a comparison between 2001 and 2006 area units [3] but it's password protected. As an issue of interpretation, I had assumed that the "extensive review", meant that they'd been reviewd extensively, rather than there were extensive changes... --Limegreen 21:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That's odd, it wasn't password protected when I downloaded it in January. Let me know if you'd like a copy. Some 13% of the records in the concordance file indicate changes beyond simple renaming; from a quick skim through, these mainly seem to be 2001 area units that have been split up in 2006 (probably due to localised population growth). So there certainly haven't been sweeping changes. -- Avenue 01:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Often you can use electoral boundaries as a semi-official way to get a vague idea on boundaries for areas. Mathmo ^Talk 12:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, we have lost of semi-official definitions already... and if I understand correctly, the electoral wards are much larger than the suburb articles we already have (and people don't use them to distinguish their areas anyway). I think it will really pretty much stay as it is (indistinct) until there is an official official definition - and even then, local definitions will remain. At the end of the day, it ain't such a big problem. Ingolfson 06:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Nambassa size problem rectified.

• With regards to a recent conversation [4] that Nambassa weighed in at 1.3mg due to it's large number of photos, when Wiki guidelines require article be under 1.2mb, I have acted on the suggestion of gadfium and removed the photo gallery and a number of individual photos from the main body and created a separate wiki article Images of Nambassa which is now linked. The main text with its sources has also been tidied up. To Moriori shouts of "Don't put credits in images themselves" this too is rectified, hopefully to his satisfaction. I have also completed Nambassa Winter Show with Mahana and within this same 1970's alternatives theme I am working on a final entry, New Zealand’s Housetruckers of the 1970s.Mombas 05:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• • "New Zealand housetreuckers of the 1970s" now renamed Housetrucker has been nominated for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the "hook" for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created on May 7 Mombas 23:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

An entry from New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 7 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 12 May, 2007.

Wikipedia

Māori names

I see that User:Hayden5650 has removed the Māori names from the infoboxes of New Zealand cities. What is the official status of these names? I think it might vary from one city to another. I tend to think that the infobox should use only the official name, but that the lead paragraph should include alternative names.

Hayden also removed the Māori names from the articles on many government agencies. I understand that these are official names, and have rolled back those edits.

As Hayden is blocked for a week for unrelated matters, he will not be able to participate directly in this discussion, but I'll copy any reasonable comments he wishes to make on his talk page to here.-gadfium 19:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

One possible objection to putting the Māori names of cities in the infobox is that they may not refer to the same area as the current city definition. For instance, I understood that Tāmaki Makau Rau referred primarily to the Auckland isthmus, not the broader Auckland conurbation. This sort of issue could be dealt with adequately in the article text, but might be difficult to express in the infobox. -- Avenue 21:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Avenue had to use the word Auckland to refer to both entities there, which suggests that Tāmaki Makau Rau and Auckland are pretty similar in the semantic area they cover. We could just use the list given on the Maori Language Commission site without worrying too much about definitions - 'Auckland' can mean a lot of things too yet that is able to be used in the infobox. I think it would be nice if the infobox did contain the Māori name, but I don't particularly want it as the official looking title under the English name in large bold. That would definitely inflame the few users who are anti-Māori. Though it must be said that other countries seem to be quite accepting to the use of multiple language-names in the title of the infobox - see Brunei - 3 languages, Montreal and India - 2 languages. Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) services the New Zealand Geographic Board Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa, which assigns official place names in New Zealand. Their site is a bit user-unfriendly but I did find this Protocol for Maori Place Names, which gives a few warmfuzzy principles but which says at least that the use of Māori names has been an accepted official practice for many decades now. Kahuroa 21:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in my first draft I wrote "Tamaki isthmus" but then changed it to "Auckland isthmus" because that seemed fairer. I take your point that Auckland has a range of meanings, and we use that in the infobox. -- Avenue 22:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

In the matter of the EMPHASIS placed on showing Maori names in the articles here, I'll point out (a bit un-PC, I guess) that there is a Maori Wikipedia. So unless the Maori name is the typical name, in use by 'everyone', then the English name should get clear preference. That said, I have no problem with double names in the infobox, though the Maori version should not be bolded in such cases. MadMaxDog 23:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other on whether Māori names are used in the infobox, but I think there is clear reason to use them in the first sentence, AND have a more detailed explanation of the meaning elsewhere in the article. Contrary to Hayden5650 assertion that the mentioning of alternate names would be confusing for people from elsewhere in the world, I think that they are probably very much interested. In terms of precedent, interesting to have a look at Cardiff, Limerick, and Edinburgh.--Limegreen 23:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• In the first sentences of the articles and in the infoboxes we can use only generally accepted most common English names (We primarily write Wikipedia for English-language readers and we should not confuse them with so many names in the infoboxes and in the first paragraph of the article where other more important things should be)
• If English-language readers want to know other names used for the subject, such names could be written in the "Name" section where they easy can find them
• We can have separate article sections named "Language" where we can describe official language policies, i.e, we can say which languages are used as official by local or national authorities.

From the scientific point of view, my opinion is very logical and very much in accordance with scientific purpose of Wikipedia. There is really no any logical reason for usage of so many non-English names in English texts because such names do not mean anything to English-language readers.
I found that preceeding argument elswhere on wikipedia, and it was largely the basis and motivation of my changes.

Also, by forcing a Maori name on every article is somewhat incorrect, as we are assuming Maori is the default language. I say this as, while a town or authority with an English name will have its Maori translation, a Maori named town (such as Tauranga, Whakatane etc) will have no such translation. I have no great problem with the Maori names being explained in a 'names' section, but disagree entirely with them being placed in the infoboxes, as if they hold as much weight as their English equivalents. We must remember, that as New Zealanders, this may not be too confusing for us, but for a foreigner to read this it would be greatly confusing. Especially if they were planning a trip to our country. Please keep these names out of infoboxes, and ideally out of the first line of the article and into a names section. --Hayden5650 23:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I support Hayden5650's view. The extra explanations of alternate names should be in the lead, but not necessarily in the very first sentence (nothing is harder to read than a

"XXXXXXXXX (also known as YYYYYY_ZZZZZZ_VVVVV in Maori, which means TTTTTT-ttttt-UUUUU) is a...."

-Construction. If extended info is given, then that should follow at the end of the lead, or in its own Etymology section. MadMaxDog 08:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the Maori names should be included both in the infobox and in the lead sentence (where they should be in italics and in brackets). They should be included in the infobox because, in New Zealand, Maori and English are both official languages of equal status, and thus the Maori name is as valid as the English one. For this reason, it should not be written in a different formatting. The Maori names are also recognised by institutions such as New Zealand Post. While this is the English Wikipedia, the infoboxes should contain all official names of a place - this is firmly set in precedent, as can be seen as Wrexham, Donostia, Edinburgh, Bautzen, Turku, Miercurea-Ciuc, etc. Furthemore, I believe that Hayden560's edit summary here borders on an attack against the Maori language. Finally, to answer MadMaxDog: it is convention that alternate names are written immediately after the boldened name in the lead sentence. The Maori name should simply be listed, not explained. Its etymological explanation can go in a separate section, or, even better, in a footnote. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 08:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is the above an attack on the Maori language? Two things in this regard: Wikipedia is not an arm of the New Zealand government, or even society. Conventions for other bilingual areas also must not necessarily apply for New Zealand Wikipedia articles. I have no problem with noting the Maori name in the infoboxes (as my edits show). But to put it on equal footing is exactly the kind of political correctness that is present in, for example, the Maori names for government departments, which nobody uses. I may be wrong, but I think if you ask Maori living in Auckland, many will not be able to tell you the Maori name. Even if I am wrong with this assertation, I am quite confident that they do not commonly USE it. Wikipedia should reflect the fact that while Rotorua is Rotorua, Auckland is not Tamaki-Makau-rau in any commonplace sense.MadMaxDog 08:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

While I'd prefer to keep the brackets, I have no big problem with you removing them, Ronline, as long as the bolding is not the same. In closing (for now) I note that the Maori-language article for Auckland does NOT list the English version. I wonder what (angry?) reactions I'd get if I put it in there, with the explanation that English is a de jure language of New Zealand... MadMaxDog 08:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you fail to see the distinction between article titles and infoboxes. The article title should always be located at the most common English name, and that is where we can bring up arguments regarding common usage. The infobox, however, should contain the full name of the locality in its official language(s), which in this case are equally English and Maori. The real usage of Maori does not matter in this case. Since the NZ Government labelled Maori as an official language, it should be used in the infobox. What exactly is the problem with including the Maori name? The edit summary mentioned above is an attack on Maori because it labels it a "nonsenical language". And two more things: 1) the English name should definitely be included in the Maori Wikipedia article for Auckland. I don't know why you're pre-empting bad faith in this regard and what the relevance of this is; 2) Why are you opposed to the bolding? The English and the Maori names are equal in status. By not boldening the Maori name, it appears to be there like a historical relic, inferior in status, rather than a name that is equal in official status to the English name. Ronline ✉ 08:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: The Maori-language article about Auckland now contains the English version as well. This should not be a problem. Ronline ✉ 08:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

As for the comment about the Maori version - yeah, that certainly had a bit of bad-faith feeling in it, and I knew it when I wrote it. So? The world is not perfect, and I don't think some slightly ironical comment of mine is harming it.

Nobody but you used the words 'nonsenical language', as far as I can see from the edit summaries and the talk here. Nobody seems to me to have come close to saying that either.

Again, I reiterate that we are not bound by NZ government policies. We on Wikipedia are making up our own mind about what those policies mean on here. Therefore, this is an argument, but not a decisive one on its own.

I am against putting them on the same level because of Emphasis. You used the words "historical relic, inferior in status", which I might from my side say are bad-faith presumptions of yours in the direction of me or other uses like Hayden5650 - we have no problem with the fact that there are Maori names for these places, and we do not consider them INFERIOR. But we do feel that they ARE less important, and that putting them on the "same level" is PC and incorrect.MadMaxDog 09:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hayden5650 did say "rm nonsenical language" in his edit summary here. -- Avenue 09:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, I was not aware of that - the Maori name version he wrongly deleted in said case would have been fully acceptable to me. Just to make it clear, I am not some anti-Maori language ogre. I have written various stubs that included the Maori names in similar ways.MadMaxDog 09:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like eveyone to note Ronlines imposing of POV. He has had his edits reverted constantly accross wikipedia, from various countries when he tries to impose minority names, language etc on the English wiki. Yes, maori is an official language, but that does not mean their placenames are official names for the respective places!! example: Mount Egmont is now Mount Egmont or Mount Taranaki. Auckland is not 'Auckland or Tamaki-Makau-rau'. Ronline, please stick to editing articles which you are knowlegdable about. And I wish to make clear, I was not calling Maori itself a non-sensicle language, but it is completely non-sensical to me, I could not read nor even attempt to pronounce that name I deleted, which is precisely why it should not be on the leading line in the English Wiki, but down in a Name section of the article. According to the last census, about 150,000 claimed to speak maori. (not all fluently). Even this only represents 3.5% of the nation, which proves it is not a mainstream language in common use. And to clarify the infoboxes, they are for quick-info on the article which they are part of, which means they are certainly not the place for unofficial naming etc which is not helpful information at all. --125.237.116.59 09:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I want to make it very clear what I meant by nonsensical language. I meant that it made absolutely no sense to me, as an English speaker on the English wiki, I could not read nor pronounce it, let alone understand it. It was not intended as an insult. Chinese and Japanese are also nonsensical to me. Perhaps I could have chosen a better word. --125.237.116.59 09:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I assume the above anonymous is Hayden5650? While I support MOST of your position, please do not argue incorrectly. "not the place for unofficial naming" - many of these names ARE official. MadMaxDog 09:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because you cannot read the Maori name is not an argument for it to be relegated to a Names section! The fact is that the name exists, and by virtue of its existence, it should be written in the lead sentence, like all other alternative names throughout Wikipedia. Secondly, I am not implying that the official English name of Auckland is "Auckland Tamaki-Makau rau". For this reason, the two names are written on separate lines. All place names in NZ now have two official names: an English one and a Maori one, because the country has two official languages that are equal in status. Also, New Zealand Post recognises the Maori place names. They should definitely be included in the infobox. Putting the two names on the same level is not incorrect considering that both languages are equal in status. And, no, there is nothing wrong with political correctness, so stop using "PC" as if I'm somehow meant to say "Oh no, I don't want to be PC so I will oppose the equalisation of the Maori and English names". Ronline ✉ 09:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the argument that Māori and English are both official languages of New Zealand, so both names should be given up front; what does this imply regarding our third official language, New Zealand Sign Language? -- Avenue 09:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

As of yet, Wikipedia cannot represent names in New Zealand Sign Language due to the fact that it is a textual medium :) Ronline ✉ 09:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes it's me, Hayden5650. I think we all also need to remember the sole purpose of a name. It is for identification, not political leverage or opinion. The Auckland article is called 'Auckland' so you know what the article is about. If you named it Tamaki-Makau-rau, no-one would know what it is about. Tamaki-Makau-rau may be information about Auckland, a 'point-of-interest' to someone perhaps. It is not an identification, as it is not identifying. I am taking Auckland as an example, however these applies to all articles. I firmly believe that the English wiki should have only the most used name, whether it be English or Maori (or French, Gaelic, there are a couple) in the title, opening name, or infobox. If the less commonly used maori name is to be presented, then it should be in a Name or Terminology section. I am fine with the Maori wiki having their Maori names, just as German wiki calls us Nueseeland, and so on. English Wikipedia should follow the trend by using English. --125.237.116.59 09:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Ronline, if you are so sure that all places have two official names, (which they don't!), then do me a favor and go through all our articles with Maori place names, such as Tauranga, Whakatane, Taupo and add in English names. If English names must have a Maori counterpart beneath, then surely Maori names must have their English counterpart represented also? --125.237.116.59 09:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No, because there is a difference. The names Tauranga, Whakatane and Taupo are also the official (and most commonly-used) English names. In that case, the English and Maori names are identical. Finally, your idea that the infobox should only contain the most common name is not what Wikipedia practice and precedent has established so far. See Edinburgh and Dublin, for example, where the Scottish and Irish names are very little used, but where they are also listed in the infobox. Also, at Germany, the infobox writes "Bundesrepublik Deutschland", not "Germany", the most common name in English. Unlike the article title, the infobox does not contain the most common English name, but rather official names. It is a quick way of seeing the official names of a locality. Ronline ✉ 09:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You are both wrong there as it happens. Tauranga, Whakatane, and Taupo are the English names. In those three cases, the Māori names are different - longer in 2 out of the 3, with an added macron in the other. Kahuroa 11:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually the Māori language article for Auckland does contain the English name. This shouldn't be a Māori vs the rest debate - as far as I can tell it has not been Māori editors who added the Māori names in the first place, so what the Māori Wikipedia does is not that relevant - this is a matter for the users of this Wiki. BTW If you look at the Māori Wikipedia articles for plants (eg mi:Horoeka) and birds (eg mi:Kōkako), most of them contain the English name in text also. As I said above it might be nice if the infoboxes did contain the Māori name, but I don't mind - in text is fine. Kahuroa 09:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that it would be nice, the Maori names should be included in the infobox because Maori is equal to English, and also because it doesn't cost anything to have the Maori names in there. Not to mention that the majority of similar cases would include such names in the infobox: see Edinburgh, Wrexham, Dublin, Bautzen, etc. Ronline ✉ 09:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And Ronline has just lost the argument. There is no difference, you have just contradicted yourself completely. What about places like Waikouaiti that used to be called Hawksbury? I suggest you quit, while you're not too far behind. --125.237.116.59 09:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And could you please conform to WP:CIVIL, particularly considering that your account has been blocked and you shouldn't even be editing using this anon account? We're here to discuss rationally and pragmatically, not to throw around words and to draw away from the conversation at hand. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 09:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for that last message and appreciate my current status. However I am getting extremely angry with what I can only discribe as your vandalism to NZ articles. I call it vandalism as you are making changes without discussion, especially as there is one going on, also that your edits are inaccurate and furthermore I notice that you have tried doing this to many countries which makes me feel that you our trying to push your own POV. These are specifically New Zealand articles and should be edited by New Zealanders. Please stop your disruptive edits. --125.237.116.59 10:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why you're interpreting my edits as vandalism, and I don't understand why you are personally getting extremely angry at seeing a Maori name in an infobox. I have indeed been involved in a similar controversy relating to Serbian localities, but aside from that, it's not like I have gone on a vandalism rampage to the localities of "many" countries. My intention is only to bring the NZ and Serbian articles in line with the rest of Wikipedia, and to make sure that all official names are included in the infobox, including the Maori one, which is of equal value in New Zealand. My intention is not to push a POV, but rather to bring about a neutral point of view, which can only be brought about when the Maori names are included. Finally: no - these articles should not be edited only be New Zealanders. I find that comment discriminatory and totally against the spirit of Wikipedia. There is no concept of personal ownership of Wikipedia articles, neither is there any concept of "collective ownership". Just because an article is about a place in New Zealand doesn't mean that, because you are New Zealander, you have more authority to edit the article or your voice carries more weight. Your tone reminds me very much of that of User:PANONIAN. Ronline ✉ 10:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Side note I have agreed to allow User:125.237.116.59 to continue to edit this discussion while his main account User:Hayden5650 is blocked. User:125.237.116.59 is prohibited from editing any Wikipedia article while the Hayden5650 account is blocked, but is welcome to contribute to this discussion. All users are reminded that the purpose of this discussion is to reach a consensus and that this can only be achieved if everyone remains civil. Thanks, Gwernol 10:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

So, Ronline, I had a look at Edinburgh, and yes, the names are all there in the three official languages of Scotland. So are you saying that in most of the rest of Wikipedia, the convention is that infoboxes give the name in the official languages of the particular country, ie, is that the test of officialness? Kahuroa 10:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

What has been agreed upon within the Scottish, Sebian or any other country does not have any bearing on New Zealand articles. What I am saying is, as a New Zealander, I know that these Maori names do not hold the same value (Informative value, as I discussed above about the point of names). Tamaki-Makau-rau holds no informative value to English speakers, which is what that English Wiki is for. Therefore, should not be in infoboxes, preferably not in the first line but in a names section. The NZ Post Office isn't the officator of names, the New Zealand Geographic Board is. I also must remind you, that maori electorates have maori names, and these encompass different areas to the (non)corresponding English ones. --125.237.116.59 10:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree there - and my question was directed to Ronline and I am interested in what his answer will be. I think it does have a bearing. Of course the Māori name of Auckland has informative value to English speakers - it tells people what the Māori language name of the place is - that is a valid encyclopedic reason for including it. And it would, in that case, also be appropriate for the Māori Wikipedia adopt a similar policy of including the English name in place infoboxes, and I would be recommending it. If the Scots can accept the name of Edinburgh in 3 languages, and if other places can accept their official languages being used, what exactly makes it difficult to accept the names being given in Māori? I don't mean this to be uncivil, but I have to wonder, is the problem simply a distaste for anything Māori? Kahuroa 11:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to preempt Ronline, but I agree with Kahuroa that wider Wikipedia practices should have a bearing on our decision. Another data point: the articles for localities in Quebec are not consistent, but several give both the English and French names in the infobox, e.g. Quebec City, as does the article for Quebec itself. In fact, the French version comes first there. Most cities in other parts of Canada just give the English name, although Ottawa is an exception. -- Avenue 12:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Kahuroa - in response to your question above, the answer would be "yes". Unlike article titles, which are meant to reflect common English usage, infoboxes should include the names of a locality as used officially. Generally, they should even include the full name - for example "City of Auckland", "Municipality of Helsinki", etc. See Finnish municipalities: Inari, Finland. With regard to Quebec, it would be normal for the French version to come first, since French is the first official language of the province and is officially prioritised over English. Cities in other parts of Canada give the English name only because most Canadian provinces are unilingually-English. Ottawa is an interesting example - as the federal seat, it recognises both French and English as official. While Canada as a whole is bilingual, states do not have to be. Some states are bilingual: see Edmundston, New Brunswick, for example. So, all in all, there are several different precedents to inspire ourselves from. In the case of New Zealand, I believe the best option would be to list the Maori name under the English name in the infobox, in the same formatting. The reason why it should be in the same formatting is because Maori has the same status as English. Most of the infoboxes I have seen always write names in the same formatting: see Ottawa, Jakobstad, Bolzano, Bautzen, etc. Ronline ✉ 13:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

New Brunswick is an interesting case. It's the only constitutionally bilingual province in Canada, and while the province's article gives both names in the infobox, most cities I've looked at don't (including the two largest, Moncton and Saint John). Edmundston, New Brunswick gives both but is 98% francophone; so does Grand Falls, New Brunswick, but it officially has a bilingual name. Anyway, it seems there are precedents out there for whatever we choose to do. -- Avenue 14:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to remember that

1. English is now the predominant world lingua franca (if that doesn't sound too mixed and daft)
2. unlike paper encyclopaedias, Wikipedia has almost unlimited space and, consequently, we can err on the side of being inclusionist

The first statement means that many people whose native language is not English read the English language versions of Wikipedia (I'm lucky that the German version is the second most comprehensive, but even I still tend to use the English version first - unless it's an architecture topic where the English version is weak). I don't think it's unbalanced to include with lesser emphasis the Maori name - but only where that Maori name is in common use (eg on name boards or signs) or common knowledge amongst readers and/or speakers of English; we shouldn't resort to laboriously searching for tortured neologisms that only the 'Maori naming industry' would recognise. The exception is the official names of Government departments and organisations which need to be mentioned in the lede and then the more usual short form should be used throughout the rest of the article.
I've also taken a look at User:Hayden5650's recent edits and most of them seem non-consensual in articles where nobody has been concerned for a long while about including Maori names. I do think that there is a great potential for edit wars here and that we need to reach a clear consensus quickly before User:Hayden5650 officially returns. (For example, I see that one of my 'sockpuppets' has been getting very upset about this very point: [5])
And now a Wikilegal point; if we do reach a consensus here, can it be enforced on all NZ related en.wikipedia.org articles? Gadfium? W. Frank 15:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't see why this situation would be prone to edit-warring. As far as I know (and maybe I don't know the situation well enough), there use of Maori in New Zealand is not seen as particularly controversial (or is it?). I have lived in Australia for some time, and there, attitudes towards indigenous people were very affirmative, and, from visiting New Zealand, I believe they are even more so there (I mean, Maori is used to a very great extent symbolically, what with Kia Ora and the like, and Maori phrases seem to be part of the NZ national identity). I don't believe that the Maori names should also be included in cases where they are "in common use". The point of the infobox is not really to reflect common use, but rather official usage. At least, this is the case at country infoboxes, and at the infoboxes representing localities in several countries with similar situations, such as Finland, the UK, South Tyrol, Romania and Hungary. A case in point is Irish infoboxes, where the Irish name is included for every locality. The point is not to include the Maori name as an alternate name (this is already done in the lead) but rather to put it as the second official name of the given locality, considering that Maori is an equal official language in New Zealand. In this case, why should the Maori name be placed in lesser emphasis? To me, placing it in lesser emphasis implies that it is an inferior name that is lesser in status than the English name, whereas de jure its status is equal. Even if Maori may not be used much in practice, symbolically it is still an official language of New Zealand, in the same way as Irish is in Ireland. Ronline ✉ 15:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think your categorisation of the general situation in NZ is not wrong.

However the people that come to WP to edit are only a tiny subset of the general population. It only takes one or two editors to strenuously and relentlessly push an extreme minority point of view and the result is either

1. a continuing edit war or
2. the capitulation of "amateurs" that simply don't have the patience or time to keep reverting the fanatics.

Maori tend to be far more reasonable than fanatical Irish nationalists but it only needs a very few white supremacists to cause havoc if a quick consensus can't be reached.

I've seen this 1, 2, inevitable process happen time after time on Irish articles where WP articles now give the impression to the ignorant that: there never were any terrorist murders, maimings resulting from bombings were a conspiracy by the police to ignore fair warnings and, just because bombs were placed in crowded bus stations, pubs, near schools and in shopping streets, it doesn't necessarily mean that these were civilian targets since it was not the victims that were targeted but "economic" targets and those poor souls just happened to be collateral damage (since, of course, a bomber can not predict exactly who will get murdered/maimed when a bomb is placed in a crowded restaurant, can he?)

On your second point about emphasis, I think MadMaxDog has already dealt with that.

I see you're an admin too, so if we do reach a consensus here, can it be enforced on all NZ related en.wikipedia.org articles? W. Frank ✉ 17:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The examples from other countries are valuable to me. They raise the question about why should NZ be different, and why Māori being an official language is apparently not enough, when it is for Scots Gaelic, a language in a very similar situation to Māori as far as using it goes. I take Frank W's point - users with extreme POVs won't listen to reason, and when their ideas are challenged, they resort to insult - it happened to me the other day. So it can be easier to 'capitulate' and let them get their way, because who has the time to fight an edit war with someone who cannot be reasoned with? And the Māori Wikipedia has no objection to the inclusion of English names in infoboxes for NZ places by the way - we're kind of waiting for the NZ section of Wikipedia to agree on an infobox template for places, and we would probably base our format on that. Kahuroa 19:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons I want to retire to Godzone is because you guys are so easy going and tolerant. And in that spirit, I'll agree to anything just so long as we have a standard to avoid edit warring - I just hate that!W. Frank ✉ 21:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

My attitude has changed in favour of the infobox carrying the Māori names since I started this discussion. The deciding argument for me was that New Zealand Post accepts them. See New_Zealand_postal_addresses#Māori_Names,

It would be possible to take a consensus here and add a subpage to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, similar to the existing Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles) page. This would be a guideline, not a policy. It would also be possible to amend the existing Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand) article, which I suspect most editors are not aware of. I've just advertised this discussion on the talk page there, and also at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand places and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Even if not added to such a page, any consensus here would become a de facto guideline. See Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines for what this actually means.-gadfium 20:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you perhaps formulate a concrete proposal then, Gadfium, and see if anyone strongly disagrees with it? W. Frank ✉ 21:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of verifiability and style, the Māori Language Commission has a list of placenames, and a map; however another site they run has a clearer map. Kahuroa 00:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That is great the Maoris have a whole list of names, and I think the Maori wiki should make full use of them. I never doubted Maori have names for NZ places, but I really do not think they should appear on English wikipedia in the titles or infoboxes. I think that if they are to be mentioned, it should be in a names section. Also, this discussion was originally talking about NZ Organisations as well, such as the Ministry of Fisheries, DHBs, Libraries, Museums etc. I feel that for these articles, on the English wikipedia, mention of the Maori name is completely unnecessary. For example, the New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries article's first line reads The Ministry of Fisheries (In Māori, Te Tautiaki i nga tini a Tangaroa), also known.... What is the purpose of including the Maori? The reason the Ministry of Fisheries uses that name is for the so-called benefit of Maori speakers in New Zealand (3% of the pop). It obviously is not for English speakers, whom this en-wiki is for. If the Maoris need Maori language, they have a Maori wiki. I don't mean to sound rude, and indeed not racist, but that really is the fact. --222.155.166.204 01:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please would you write your name after your comments, Hayden - even if you are not logging in. W. Frank ✉ 01:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I'll be on this IP until Sunday or Monday. --Hayden

I think it's rather more clear cut with New Zealand organisations. If an organisation has a bilingual name, and it's displayed prominently on their website (Hayden's MFish for example), then it's only appropriate that it is mentioned in the wikipedia article. Hayden asks What is the purpose of including the Maori [name]?. It is information about the topic of the article, and as such is appropriate for inclusion. I see no reason to censor information based on its linguistic origin. It would seem silly to excise any Latin from article on fauna and flora (or indeed the words flora and fauna themselves. Similarly, it seems appropriate that the origin of Dannevirke is glossed in that article.-Limegreen 16:56, 21 May 2007 (NZST)

Removing those alternate, official names from the article, as Hayden suggests, would indeed be incorrect. MadMaxDog 05:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Going back a little step, Ronline, please do not tell me what words I can use in my arguments - at least as long as I am not insulting you. Political correctness IS something I consider problematic, and I use it in the sense this word has shifted in meaning during the last decade or so. Argue against my argument - but don't tell me I can't use it. You're correct in one respect though. I don't want to be PC. I'd settle for polite (hopefully, I can be tetchy at times), but not for PC.

Rant over, back to the issue - Again, I do not oppose the use of Maori names either in text or in the infoboxes. However, I want the totally "Clueless-About-New Zealand" reader to be able to distinguish what is the English and what the Maori name. You may argue that this is not the problem here - I disagree. The above clueless reader comes to the "Auckland" article and then reads, in the infobox "Auckland Tāmaki-makau-rau", separated, in your version, by nothing but being on two different lines. It is fair to presume that he might think that Auckland is just a CONTRACTION of a much longer name, instead of one version of two official ones. Therefore, I fell that if we are proposing a guideline on how to resolve this, we should include SOME sort of distinguishing this. Again, I propose either

• bracketing the lesser-used version
• not bolding the lesser-used version
• Putting small superscript tags with "Maori name" "English name" behind the place names.

How do people like these suggestions, what do they favour? MadMaxDog 05:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is unreasonable to have them perhaps not bolded (that seems consistent with the overseas useage), except where they constitute the official name (e.g., [[Stewart Island/Rakiura, Aoraki/Mt Cook). --Limegreen 06:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Update. I note from the NZ Geographic Board Link above the following "Dual naming has been adopted as a practice since the 1920’s. The early format tended to have the English or non-Maori name followed by the Maori name in brackets either after or more commonly below the non-Maori name. More recently, and particularly during the last fifteen years, the Board has favoured showing the Maori name first, followed by a forward slash, then the English or non-Maori name."S4(i). Eighty years of (apparent) precedent for dual naming appears to agree with the consensus that has developed here. I don't think it makes sense to follow the [Maori]/[English] format they advocate, but it seems that either using brackets or a different line is appropriate. Also, with respect to orthographics, they offer the following which I think would be helpful for formulating NZ Placename guidelines:

---

3 v) Other conventions:

a) Macrons are to be used for the publication of approved names. Double vowels are also acceptable.

b) ‘Nga’ should always be joined to the following name.

c) ‘Te’ should be written wherever possible without the capital.

d) Tribal names, ‘Nga’, ‘Ngai’, ‘Ngati’ should be followed by captitalised proper names.

e) Hyphens should not to be used, and the possessive apostrophe should be avoided.

---

--Limegreen 06:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

MadMaxDog - in answer to your query: I think your concern about people not recognising which names are which is reasonable (even though I think that most Wikipedia readers will understand that the second name is in Maori). To deal with this, I think the best way is to tag the place names, as per the Scotland article. Another perhaps more interesting way is the Scottish towns model - see Aberdeen. There, the Gaelic and Scots name are not tagged but are linked straight to the language in which they are written. Personally, I would favour the Scotland approach, where it's written "Scotland (English) --NEW LINE-- Alba (Scottish Gaelic)". I think in this way we can be more explicit without affecting the equality of the English and Maori names. I believe using brackets is wrong for semantic reasons - the bracket implies that the Maori name is an alternative name rather than a name in a different language. For example, the bracket might be used in the case of "Mumbai (Bombay)" or something like that. Ronline ✉ 06:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Limegreen - I think your suggestions regarding name conventions are not practical for the Māori names at least. For those, if we just follow what the Māori Language Commission uses in the links I gave we don't have to argue about the way each name is formatted. Makes our job much simpler. The conventions you list aren't appropriate for the subject under discussion - for example, there are no tribal names in place names. They just don't apply, and there are no possessive apostrophes in Māori names, and writing Te without the capital seems bizarre in this context. Let's keep it simple and leave it up to the MLC to worry about the formatting. Having been involved in Māori publications, trust me it can get very hairy unless you have a pre-formulated standard to follow.

As for the infoboxes, a lot of places seem to do it like this place in Wales: Newport. This one is interesting too: St David's. Kahuroa 07:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, St David's is similar to Aberdeen. That's a rather interesting way to make the reader know what language each name is in without explicitly stating it. Personally, I don't think it's particularly aesthetically-pleasing, but it's a way. All in all, there are several ways to do this without making the Maori name "less emphasised" than the English name. Ronline ✉ 07:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Using italics to denote words from a foreign language is a pretty standard convention, so I would prefer doing that to linking. Italics are used in Newport and Scotland, although the latter then says which language each name is from in parenthesis. That seems like overkill to me if that information is given in the article. -- Avenue 07:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Tend to agree with Avenue. And of course, there is New Zealand - tho I prefer the simpler approach as on the Māori Wiki mi:Aotearoa. Kahuroa 07:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Kahuroa, those guidelines were from a link that you provided, specifically about placenames [[6]. I can find several official New Zealand placenames of Māori origin with apostrophes (Nene's Pa, Muriwai's Pa). I think we'd both agree that it is poor useage. As for capitalisation, NZGB seem to have a fairly haphazared approach to that in Māori placenames (e.g., Kaia Te Mata Marae BUT Kokako o te marama Stream OR Lake Okataina/Te Moana I kataina a Te Rangitakaroro [7]).--Limegreen 07:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I know where the link came from - that pdf was one I found when trying to find a listing of 'official' names, but the discussion has moved on since then. Agree that NZGB site is haphazard - however it would be easy for someone like me to bring their names into line with the MLC conventions. Kahuroa 08:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be intersting to consider why they deviate from MLC conventions (which presumably they're aware of). In terms of formulating new place names, avoiding apostrophes and using macrons are no-brainers, but why are they anti-hyphenation (and why do some recently changed names like Clutha/Mata-Au feature hyphens and capitalization). --Limegreen 09:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I vote for the elegant, concise and informative approach adopted at St David's for the infobox (where there is an alternative language name) but, since this is the English language WP, any alternative language names also italicised to follow a common WP convention. This would also work for settlements that were originally named in German (like Sarau[8]) but then adopted an English name. In the case of historic names like Sarau the earlier name should be in smaller type or brackets. I'm quite vehemently opposed to putting small superscript tags with "Maori name", "English name", etc, behind the place names when the hypertext way is much more elegant and helpful to our readers. W. Frank ✉ 10:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You all know where I stand. However, if this language is going to be forced on the en-wiki I would vote that it be kept out of the infoboxes. Then, if the maori name is a known name (can't think of an example), then it be written in brackets and italicized in the first line. Otherwise, if we have to go back 200 years to the last time the name was used, it be presented in a names section. And to destroy the NZ Post Office argument, I frequently receive packages in the mail from the Soviet Union and Germany, with my German packages send-to address reading 'Nueseeland', my town/city reading 'Stadt' and instead of '*** Street', it reads '**** Straße'. And all my mail reaches me. Therefore, I think the NZ Post Office's acceptance of Maori names is hardly authorative, when they accept anything. --Hayden --222.155.180.172 10:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hayden, this language is the indigenous language of New Zealand! This is not directly related to the topic at hand, but, as person who is neither from New Zealand nor Maori, I find that the way you refer to Maori is rather disparaging, particularly with regard to it being "forced" on en-wiki. You seem to be implying that there's some sort of reverse colonial conquest going on here. You have to understand that there is absolutely no controversy about Maori names being included in the articles, since Wikipedia place name articles include alternate names all the time, even when these aren't official or part of contemporary usage. Having the Maori names in the lead but not the infobox is not a compromise, since Wikipedia policy already states we should have the names in the lead. Ronline ✉ 10:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Maori is no more native than English to New Zealand. Have you never heard the saying 'we are all immigrants'. They only bet us by a couple of centuries. This however is not the point. And as for the reverse colonial conquest, it is going on, however this particular discussion is not the right one for that. I appreciate that you are not from NZ, and therefore understand that you may have some misconceptions about our country. I feel that you think that Maori is a commonly spoken language. It is not, only 3 or so percent of the population understand it. There are more chinese speakers in New Zealand than maori speakers. Alot of things, such as maori names and maori landrights in New Zealand are made 'official', due to an unbelievable amount of political correctness in this country. Things like maori names for certain places, for example, are made official not for the benefit of anyone or for any informative value, but simply to appease the maori folk for such things as so called 'historic injustices'. Political correctness in New Zealand stretches wide and far. Ethnicity in New Zealand used to be determined by the blood running through your vains, but a few decades ago it became apparent that there are no full-blooded maori left, so the process of assigning ethnicity was changed to 'self identification'. It is therefore not uncommon to find on our maori rugby team, players with blonde hair and blue eyes. I am trying to give you some idea of what is going on in New Zealand, so that you may fully appreciate and understand my argument, and where it is coming from. Wikipedia is a valuable tool for seeking information and knowledge, not for pushing politics and honoring various governments politically correct policies. --Hayden --222.155.180.172 11:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I said I was not from New Zealand in order to make it clear that I don't hold a particular bias in this debate, not to show that I have misconceptions about New Zealand. I try to keep myself informed as much as possible, and I am very much aware of the reduced practical use of Maori in New Zealand, just as Irish is not very widely used in Ireland. Having lived in Australia for a significant period of time, I am also aware of the black armband view of history and whole debate about indigenous rights, reconciliation, etc. However, the fact of the matter is that New Zealand has three equal official languages, Maori, English and NZSL, of which NZSL is non-written and falls outside of the debate here. Finally, I regard your comments about the Maori, and the negation of historical injustices, rather defamatory. When I was in Australia, making such comments about the Aborigines was seen as socially-unacceptable. In fact, while I did hear the "we are all immigrants" phrase often, it was almost always accompanied by the addition of "except the Aborigines". While I appreciate that your view may have some grounding, I do believe that it is a rather "fringe" view in an Oceanic context. Ronline ✉ 11:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Hayden represents very much a minority view.NZ forever 01:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hayden, whatever you believe about the political implications and reasons for supporting Maori official names etc... (and I agree with SOME of your arguments here) they ARE official names, and the fact that there are alternate names is a valid and important fact for a Wikipedia article. Therefore, in they go. All my arguing here has been aboout the way they should be included, never about the fact.MadMaxDog 12:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Check out South Africa; they've got 11 official languages to deal with!

I feel strongly that wikilinking placenames to Māori_language or English language as suggested above is a poor use of wikilinks. See WP:PIPE#Intuitiveness.

I also disagree with the following comment in the next section: 'Then we lose the valuable convention that italics denote the (first) use of a name that has not been generally adopted into the English language. Thus: "Cafe" but "Schadenfreude".' I don't believe Te Whanganui-a-Tara and Tāmaki-makau-rau have been generally adopted into the English language (even in NZ English), certainly not to the extent that "cafe" has. -- Avenue 15:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this. If something is one of the official names of a place then that is a relevant fact and should be included. NZ forever 01:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Maori names - guideline

(Trying to split this up a little, getting mighty long. Please continue to argue the matter in the above section, write in here if you personally have come to a decision on the guideline idea)

Hayden's opposition aside, we seem to have reached a majority consensus (as much as a consensus is possible for a discussion which has not been running for that long, time-wise) in that we will have:

• both names in the infobox
• names linked to the language they are in

Unclear so far:

• a) Should one version be italicised? Presumably the lesser-used one (some cases this may well be the English version)
• b) Should the link be a simple piped link to the language, or a (Maori) (English) bracket behind the name?

I support a) italicising one version (though we may end up having another discussion about equivalence (which one gets italicised?) down the line) and b) putting the language link in separate brackets behind - the reason is that 99% of all readers will NOT actually want to use a hyperlink to go to the language article, and a non-piped link in brackets allows you to understand which language it is without leaving the page. I think the Scotland approach is best, therefore.

What do other people believe? MadMaxDog 11:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe not in the infobox. Italicised and bracketed in the first line. i.e Hawksbury (Maori: Wakaioaiti). AndI don't want to see maori names stuck in for the sake of having a maori name, it should be justified. --Hayden --222.155.180.172 11:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There does seem to be general agreement (with one holdout) on having both names in the infobox. (Although this seems unnecessary when both names are the same, e.g. Tauranga, Rotorua; do you agree?) However I think we should not link them to the relevant language, and from their comments above I believe Kahuroa and Ronline felt the same way as me on this point. I'd be happier simply putting the Māori version in italics. I think this is enough to indicate that it's not just one long name (like "Auckland Tāmaki Makau Rau"). This is for places where the official name is in English only; if there is a joint official name (e.g. Aoraki/Mount Cook), I think the whole thing should go in the infobox without any italics. -- Avenue 12:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Then we lose the valuable convention that italics denote the (first) use of a name that has not been generally adopted into the English language.

Thus: "Cafe" but "Schadenfreude".

If we have a simple piped link to the relevant (non-English language) it will show up when the mouse is "hovered" over it anyway in most W3C compliant browsers and it will also show up in a distinguishing blue colour thus: Aoraki Mount Cook where there are two versions of equal standing amongst English speakers and, where the non-English version is in rarer use, the common version centred above the archaic or lesser used version in the Infobox, thus:

Upper Moutere

Sarau

W. Frank ✉ 13:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I simply feel that the bracket version looks more elegant than linking only ONE of the two terms, and then not bolding yet italicising the second one... I actually feel that this, as seen above, actually seems to indicate one is somehow more important than the other? A bit of a visual mess too, I think. No offense.

No offence taken (through gritted teeth).W. Frank ✉ 16:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No, we wouldn't need double versions for place names that have no other variant, like Tauranga. MadMaxDog 13:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

(inserted comment: BTW, as I said above, the Māori names of places like Tauranga and Rotorua ain't necessarily the same Kahuroa 19:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC))

Why on earth would we need to explain, in the English language version of WP, that Mount Cook is the English name? And, if you examine the code, you will see that both Mount Cook and Aoraki are bolded. And, if you actually read out loud what I wrote, you would see that, in the second example, it is intended to denote that the name of Sarau is somehow less important than Upper Moutere!

And, of course we don't need to see:

Whangarei

Whangarei

!!!!

W. Frank ✉ 14:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

W. Frank, cool down. You are taking the discussion way too seriously right now, as I see from your edit summary!

Look at the Scotland article - it uses the format I am proposing. I think having both languages as bracket tags is just consistent. As for the smaller type-non-bolded, accepted, you were intending something slightly different than I thought you did. May I in turn point you to the fact that for your Whangarei example above, you are getting into a tizzy over something I explained IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH to not be necessary (having two versions if the name's the same)?

Lets not get all frustrated with each other here. Obviously we haven't ironed out everything yet.MadMaxDog 14:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It would only be consistent if this were the Esperanto version of Wikipedia and then an explanation that Auckland is an English name might be useful. We're talking about an infobox here aren't we? We need to be visually concise. Do you disagree with any of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geogre/Templates#What_is_an_infobox.3F ? W. Frank ✉ 16:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

On appearance grounds I like it best when one of the names is italicised, and neither of them is linked. If the name itself is linked, clicking it can take the reader somewhere they didn't want to go. If we have to do it, maybe the links could be smaller in font size than in the Scotland example. The slight concern I have is that it is kind of a way of marking one of the languages as somehow suspect. Kahuroa 19:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand your preference for italicisation and I take your point that the linking might be annoying for someone on a slow link. I understand your reservations about identifying the non-English language on the English Wikipedia, but think, on balance, that it will be useful (for a non kiwi audience) for the reasons described in earlier discussion. Is this borderline acceptable: [9] ? W. Frank ✉ 21:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is borderline acceptable to me, although I'd prefer both names to be bold, with the Māori version in italics (unless it is the article title). I also think putting the language in superscript looks ugly, and would prefer that to be the same size as the name (but not in bold). I still think giving the language in parentheses is unnecessary, given this will be covered in the article, but I can compromise on that. -- Avenue 22:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

My reservations were on appearance grounds only, and as long as the reason for marking the language is a practical one (like helping non-kiwis) rather than a POV one, then that's all good. Re Nelson, I agree with Avenue that superscript is ugly. How about this - changing it to small instead - I prefer that to superscript , but maybe it looks even better with the font (almost )the same size - feels more relaxed somehow - maybe exactly the same size would be better still - not a major whichever way tho. My other concern has to do with having a 'standard' for the Māori names - and I strongly prefer the Maori Language Commission version because they are the formatting standard for printed Māori these days and operate by a consistent set of conventions. In fact they set the standard - that is part of the job parliament entrusted to them. And also, if someone says 'X' is not the Māori name of this town, we can avoid edit wars by pointing to the MLC and say well, sorry, it is. Makes life simpler as we have found on the Māori Wiki. Kahuroa 00:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I quite like your second version (almost )the same size and I do agree that the superscript version looked uglier. You have made an excellent point about using the Maori Language Commission version where (in most NZ cases) the non-English version is Maori although Kaikoura will end up being a bit long (grin). W. Frank ✉ 00:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy enough with Kahuroa's second version. I support using the MLC names. -- Avenue 02:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The 'almost' the same size was an accident because I forgot to include it within the 'big' tag. Seems to work, to me, but am happy to go with whatever the consensus is. Kahuroa 05:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this latest version is good, but the Maori name should be in bold. I fail to see the point of distinguishing it using two formatting elements: boldness and italics. Distinguishing the Maori name from the English using just italics is enough of a distinction. Italics is also better semantics than a lack of boldness - making it less bold than the English implies inferior status, while italics generally just implies that it's a foreign (non-English) name. My proposed version would be this or this. The last thing - we should really get around to making a standardised infobox for NZ place names. It would make things so much easier to edit. An example for inspiration are Template:Infobox UK place (even though this is probably too complex). Ronline ✉ 06:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with what you say - both bold is good. Can't tell what the difference is between your two suggestions tho - in a hurry, but both look good. And I agree about the infobox template - see the discussion above when I raised this same issue a while back. Kahuroa 06:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the maori names should be italic, and not boldened. I also think the Maori names should be smaller in size than the English names when presented in the infobox, as following:

Bogansville

Waikikamukau

I don't think the Maori word needs to be linked, as in the first line of the article the Maori name will be written there i.e 'Bogansville (Maori: Waikikamukau) is a town...' If someone could throw this format into an infobox for an article to see what it looks like, that would be great. I'd do it, but as you know I'm currently confined to here. Also, I think that English translations should be placed beneath Maori words, as a point of interest. i.e

Omarama

Place of Light

I feel this would be as interesting for other NZers as it would for foreigners. Any thoughts? --Hayden --222.155.191.136 08:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that putting the language link in smaller font is a good idea - we end up, in a very small infobox part, with multiple (3+) different fonts sizes, italicising etc... - that is just what I meant with visual untidyness. My own favoured would be BOLD for main name, italics for second name, italics linked (same size) for the language bracket. MadMaxDog 12:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

English Name

Māori Name (Māori)

Can somebody draft a WP:MOS guideline, maybe on a user subpage for now? I am sadly not able to do anything before the weekend, really should be offline already.MadMaxDog 12:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with MadMaxDog (altho there shd be a macron on the language link). Seems to me we pretty much have a consensus so maybe an admin could draft up the guideline Kahuroa 19:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, certainly. Fixed macron now. MadMaxDog 06:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Putting the clocks back

Someone needs to change the Daylight Savings time displayed at the top of this project page. I'm too ignorant to do it. W. Frank ✉ 10:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Done --Hayden --222.155.180.172 11:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Hayden. (I've changed NZDT to NZST). What's that "Dog Kennel" that my sockpuppet and/or sockpuppetmaster (I'm never entirely sure which offence exactly I've been found "not proven" of) is talking about here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nelson%2C_New_Zealand#Nelson.27s_M.C4.81ori_name.2C_Whakat.C5.AB

I've read that over and over, and something tells me I am being insulted, but I can't quite work out how! I have a feeling it could be a redneck insult? --Hayden --125.237.103.86 19:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Māori names in Infoboxes

Just wondering whether anyone is willing to move on the discussion above towards making it into a guideline? Wouldn't want all that consensus work to disappear or pass its use-by date. It was kind of just left up to 'an admin' but I'm not sure if anyone is doing anything about it - will certainly help if I can, and maybe it could be the catalyst for developing a template-based infobox for NZ locations Kahuroa 11:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added a few lines to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand). If you think I've got the final consensus wrong, or want to add to what I've written, feel free to adjust that section. If you think the matter needs more debate, please continue the debate here rather than making controversial changes there.-gadfium 20:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Cheers Kahuroa 00:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a part of the consensus missing. My impression was that we had agreed to the use of the Māori Language Commission versions of the names where possible as a standard to avoid disputes and edit warring. Kahuroa 08:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Just add that. I consider it uncontroversial. MadMaxDog 08:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sweet. Kahuroa 08:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Meetings

Hey everyone, Are there currently any meetings in consideration, or any planned? Also, what cities and such are meetup's usually in? I'm in Whangarei, Northland, however i'm keen to attend a meetup, and I can probably travel to Auckland if its only a lunch or so - I can do something different that day as well, so it's not so expensive. Lastly, are the meetings usually in pubs? I am not legally able to drink - so that may be an issue for me as well as some others in attending meetups. Thanks, and hope to attend a meetup sometime! (Note: I have this page watched, so if you leave your edit summary containing the default text with Meetings in it then I will read and respond ASAP) Matt - TheFearow 08:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is a good page to watchlist as any meeting in New Zealand is likely to be advertised here. You might also like to watchlist Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland, which should be very low traffic. We have agreed in principle to have a meeting in Auckland every six months or so, and the last one was in Feb. The meetings have been in pubs so far; as I understand it, people too young to drink are still able to attend so long as they don't consume alcohol.-gadfium 09:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I already have both this page and the meetup page watchlisted. So the next one will be around August? I should be able to attend then :) Thanks for the quick reply (It is so great having others in this timezone who can answer queries) Matt - TheFearow 21:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Re photo of Prime Minister, Helen Clark

Re: Photo depicting the current New Zealand Prime Minister: The Photo does not accurately reflect her age whatsoever as she appears to be unrealistically and substantially younger than she actually is. The origin of the photo appears to have been sourced from the now infamous Labour "Pledge Card". That Pledge card was personally signed by the Prime Minister and allegedly funded by approximately $800,000 of public monies. Initially, the Labour party have denied such allegations and protested when asked to pay the money back. However, after much public criticism the Labour Party have eventually succumbed and agreed to "pay the money Back".

Source is provided here, and the pledge card stuff is really unimportant when dealing with the image. As for the fact that a publicity pic will look a bit better than 'real' photos, that is neither here nor there. While recent photos are best (unless the person has been out of the limelight for a long time - then, a photo representative of their 'famous days' would be better for the main pic), there is no urgent need to update this, I find. MadMaxDog 12:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, also if it is a widely distributed publicity photo then it is a recognisable image. NZ forever 01:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This line, from the latest signpost is interesting. "Even though public figures may perceive that it serves their interest to provide free-license photos, these will typically be polished, posed shots designed to present a favorable impression. For such subjects, the contributions of other photographers will remain useful to present additional visual perspectives and convey a neutral point of view." Brian | (Talk) 07:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a photograph which has so obviously been photoshopped or paintshopped beyond the bounds of reality should be permitted as a representative picture! Helen never has, and never will look like that, without some serious orthodontic and botox procedures. --Hayden5650 03:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Brian's Signpost quote above; what's desirable is that we present a fairly balanced view overall. There are another four pictures of her in the Helen Clark article, none of which is obviously manipulated (only one is another publicity photo). There was some controversy over the student photo, because some felt it detracted from her credibility. So we have one that might be seen as too positive, and one that might be seen as too negative. Overall I don't see a problem. Wouldn't this discussion be better moved to Talk:Helen Clark, anyway? -- Avenue 04:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we should keep it here, as my objection was in fact from reading the New Zealand article. The photo in question is used in a couple of articles --Hayden5650 04:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't see that the photo adds a lot to the New Zealand article. For comparison, Australia doesn't have a shot of John Howard (or the Queen), and while the United States article does show one picture of Bush, it's not just his publicity shot - he's actually doing something (shaking hands with Tony Blair) that is germane to the section it's in (Foreign relations and military). I don't have any objection to deleting Helen Clark's current photo from the NZ article, assuming it's discussed on Talk:New Zealand first.

The other articles I've found containing the photo are Politics of New Zealand and some general election articles (e.g. New Zealand general election, 2008), where it's up against a photo of the National Party leader (or a blank space where one should be). I think a publicity shot of the party leader is fine in those settings. It would be good to find a nicer photo of John Key if we can; the current one makes it look like he's just been punched in the side of the head. -- Avenue 09:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has, indeed, been had on Talk:Helen Clark, and regularly. You will notice that almost all of the NZ PMs' wikipedia entries use offical protraits, as do almost all the pages of other world leaders, even the vandal magnet which is George Bush. Neil Leslie 05:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

While the photo of Clark is rather flattering, it is her and should be left.Mombas 08:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions of fanua and flora

Kahuroa has suggested that this would be the place to seek an exemption from macrons for New Zealand's flora and fauna in the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand). This was brought on by objections to using macrons in the titles of species of bird such as the Kaka, Kokako, Takahe and Kereru (see the talk page of Talk:Kākā. A similar exemption exists as a precedent for placenames; given their widescale adoption into New zealand English. The names of many New Zealand birds are Māori loanwords but have have become adopted as the principal common name of the species.

The main reason why this should be done is the importance of New Zealand's fauna in the wider scientific scale of things. New Zealand species are disproportinally important to their numbers and range, they encompass orders and families found nowhere else in the world and fall beyond the scope of just New Zealand. Scientific methodologies such as island restoration developed here have also pushed New Zealand's fauna into the limelight as important examples of species and habitat conservation (like the Kakapo and the Black Robin). Macrons are scary to readers and editors from the rest of the world, personally I prefer typing Kaka or even Kaka (bird) than having to hunt down the article and copy-paste it.

In the context of the science and writings of New Zealand's fauna and flora macrons are overwhelmingly not used. Looking at the important Kiwi-originated texts on my shelf, The Flight of the Huia (Kerry-Jayne Wilson), The Lost World of the Moa (Worthy and Holdaway) and Ghosts of Gondwana (George Gibbs) don't use it, only Te Papa's popular science coffee table Extinct Birds of New Zealand (Tennyson) does (totally worth reading, btw). Notornis and the journals of the Royal Society of New Zealand don't use them either. Its been pointed out before that The Commission believes that the macron is the most efficient means of marking long vowel length, and advocates the use of this marker in all but a handful of cases. [10] , but the Māori Language Commmsion document cited also stated implicitly that The following is a set of writing conventions that the Mäori Language Commission recommends be observed by writers and editors of Māori language texts. (my bolding).

This suggestion applies only to species where the Māori loanword has been adopted into English and is used as the prefered common name for the species (or group, in the case of the kakariki); if the Māori name is given in addition to an English name (like mōho) it should be left macronised and in italics. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Four points, pro and con:

1. I note that it appears to be the accepted convention for flora at least to be under the binomial scientific name as Metrosideros bartlettii rather than Barlett's rātā - with other names as redirects to that. In fact a couple of articles I created for Northern rātā and Southern rātā were moved to the scientific names yesterday. - they were moved by User:KP Botany, who left me the note: "Please note that the naming convention for plant articles on Wikipedia calls for the use of scientific names, generally, with common names being redirects to the article titled by the scientific name." I was ok with that. Why not for fauna too? It probably makes sense given that the scientific names are unambiguous on the whole.
2. It appears that there is a growing move toward the use of macrons in flora publications, such as the 2006 Montana book award winner: Simpson, P., 2005. Pōhutukawa & Rātā: New Zealand's Iron-Hearted Trees. Wellington: Te Papa Press.
3. I note that some plant society newsletters also use macrons - Here's a quote from Wellington Botanic Gardens survey, 2003: We believe that possum poisoning which began in 1992 has helped to slow further deterioration of the remnants, but the condition of the crowns of some species, e.g. hīnau, kōtukutuku and kāmahi, is deteriorating. Some substantial hīnau trees have died, and kōtukutuku and kāmahi appear to be dying, almost certainly from drought, with browsing a contributing factor.
4. BTW, the macrons are available in the characters section at the bottom of the Wiki edit screen, so you actually don't have to do any copy and pasting! Kahuroa 05:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I forget that the <ref> tag is below and I use those a dozen times a day - what chance has anything else down there? :P As for Why not for fauna too? It probably makes sense given that the scientific names are unambiguous on the whole. it has been suggested and while it might have some support from scientists (I certainlty am coming round to it) such a move would be maddeningly difficult to achieve concensus for every animal article. Moreover scientific names are no more set in stone than common ones. I could look up archived arguments on this but you get the idea. Incidentally, the Tree of Life's naming conventions, for birds anyway, would have several of the New Zealand birds named as in the Handbook of Birds of the World, making Kereru the New Zealand Pigeon, which I'd rather avoid, but certainly wouldn't have the macrons. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC).

The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) and the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) are strangely out of sync, so that at the moment the fauna conventions require the use of common names, and as modified by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand) that requires macrons in the names of bird articles with Māori names like Kākā. However flora articles should be under the scientific names, and so the common names like Northern rātā is just a redirect to Metrosideros robusta. Be nice if we could make it consistent for avifauna experts like Sabine's Sunbird Kahuroa 06:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't notice when Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand) was split off from the broader placename page. The part on macrons was added by Grutness (along with much more) with an edit summary of "expanding from memory and from other convention pages", but I'm not aware of an earlier convention that said this, or any discussions that reached a consensus on using macrons in fauna names. Can anyone direct me to this?

There was some discussion a year ago at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand/Archive1#Macrons, which agreed (or came very close to agreeing) that macrons should not generally be used in fauna names borrowed from Māori. I'm happy to see more discussion about this; macrons are currently used very inconsistently across our fauna articles, and it would be nice to tidy this up one way or the other. -- Avenue 11:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Weston

This is relatively trivial, but the article on Weston has a demographics section that seems out of proportion to the town's size. The difference of opinion has been simmering for a little while now (I'm not sure if it was/is related to someone signing up for an impersonation account yesterday), but I think it would be good to have some additional eyes. --Limegreen 04:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I've requested a checkuser on the anon.-gadfium 05:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Weston maybe relatively small, but then again the entire population of the South Island is less than that of Auckland. It's all relative. With Weston's affluent European population, you might say it is to Oamaru as Ponsonby is to Auckland (minus the poofters). Ponsonby has a demographics section. Furthermore, Limegreen was not only deleting this relevant information, but was replacing it with complete nonsense. The subdivision on Saleyards Road in no way affects Weston. Next time there is some nice weather, (fairly rare nowadays), I shall take some photos around Weston, and upload them. An aerial or two might also be beneficial, not only to users in general, but to fellow editors who do not know where Saleyards Road is. Yes it joins a road called Weston Road, but Weston Road runs from SH1 into Oamaru, right into Weston. Recent edits by Limegreen had their references cited (albeit on the talkpage) as being from the ODT, (you'll be familiar with that, Gadfium), I assume from an article relating to the proposed Holcim Cement Plant on the other side of Weston. Also, I get a feeling Limegreen has taken objection to the mere mentioning of how European Weston is. At 98.7%, I'd say that is a statistic worth mentioning. The other demographics, including relative incomes, less bastardised families etc serve to backup the statement that Weston is regarded as more affluent.

Ponsonby's demographic section seems fairly interesting and relevant. That Ponsonby has a high level of NZ Europeans is interesting, because that is not true of other parts of Auckland. In contrast, Weston has extremely similar levels of NZ Europeans to the whole of the Waitaki district, making it shockingly uninteresting. --Limegreen 12:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Given that things which are shocking are interesting, doesn't being "shockingly uninteresting" make Weston interesting? Maybe the whole place will disappear in a puff of logic Neil Leslie 02:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait, wouldn't that make Weston God, or at least Godlike (within a Hitch-Hiker's paradigm)? We better add this brilliant discovery to the article immediately! Oh, wait, no original research. :( - Axver 05:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I blocked several anons who had edited the article after a checkuser came back as "Likely" that they were a currently-blocked user.-gadfium 05:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions of fauna and flora

This proposal by Sabine's Sunbird relating mostly to fauna names (above) does not seem to be a particularly controversial one so I suggest that it be acted on - or at least discussion should move on to what the next step should be. (BTW If we make it that fauna names derived from Māori should not have the macrons, then maybe we could have something like this near the start of the article, eg: common name: 'Kaka' - from Māori language 'Kākā', parrot.) Kahuroa 08:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds sensible to me.-gadfium 09:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

As long as the articles contain both versions of their name, eg Kaka and Kākā, it seems fine. The reason for including both is that people using the search engines, both the WP one and external ones like Google, will by more likely to be searching for Kaka (or equivalent) than using the non-standard characters.--Mendors 19:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

There's also the point that - like place names - the names are basically loan-words in English, and it's rare for English loan-words to retain accent marks (except in a few rare French cases where their use is largely optional, like passé). So while Kākā is correct in Māori and strictly speaking should be in English, Kaka is far more widely encountered in English. Grutness...wha? 01:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Older images - copyright cutoff date?

Already asked this at the copyright page, lets also put it for discussion here:

When working on articles about historic matters (NZ mostly), I often get images which have dates on when they were taken, but not who took them. NZ copyright allows reuse of an image 50 years after the authors death, or 100 years after it was taken by a government agency. Finding out who took an image is hard, finding out their death date is in most cases impossible.

Therefore, would it be acceptable for me to label an image Template:PD-NZ if it was taken on or before 1857?

The above year was derived in the following way: I assume that at maximum, a person would live to around 115 years. I am stretching that, the number of people who do are so limited. I also assume that a person would not have been able to take a photo before he was 15 (remember, this was in the day when cameras were still about as complicated and expensive to use as, say, an airplane today). 15 would be very conservative.

Therefore, any photo taken 150 years ago would be public domain (took photo at 15, then lived to 115, plus 50 years copyright). If the photo was taken by a government agency or a company after all, it would have entered PD even earlier (after 50-100 years after being taken, depends), so that would be safe as well.

What do people think about this? This is quite relevant here, for there ARE many photos of early NZ colonial of 1857 or earlier, and within the next years, increasingly more will become available as time goes by.MadMaxDog 11:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I note that if you CAN prove they were taken for a local authority or a Crown entity, you can freely use NZ photos after 50 years (local authority entity) or 100 years (Crown entity). This does give us legal access to a whole lot of images currently still being brazenly tagged with COPYRIGHT! notes in all sorts of documents. I feel that this is an issue we need to push (not aggressively as in 'antagonistically', but actively). MadMaxDog 11:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You are being very conservative in your reasoning. I think you are very safe in using these photos.-gadfium 19:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that the Alexander Turnbull Library DOES have life/death data for many of the creators of photos and other images on its website (see 'timeframes' for their search engine). This will take the guesswork out of many images, and allow us to reuse them 50 years after the creaters death - giving us many more available images. Bless their souls for being so considerate (even if they, too, try the 'publishing not allowed without our permission' stunt). MadMaxDog 00:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I FULLY support your initiative. I also noticed those notices, i guess they are trying to ensure all images (old and new) are covered when they place those notices on all the material. I have given heaps of pics as another solution, even to the point of taking them with this space in mind on occasion. The old cameras were in fact pretty simple, put a glass plate into the box, uncover it, open the shutter for a time, perhaps light some magnesium ground up into a tray ( i did that at discos back in the 70's lots) and then what, immerse in some developer, wash and fix, etc. Probably not as hard as being an editor here. I'm currently doing deep space object imaging, and thats about as complex as it can get, with a Canon 20D, using stacking, darks, flats, and guided telescopes etc. SKY ORG I think that you would be quite amazed at how excellent results can be obtained with a 'pin-hole camera', my dad showed me how to make a 'pin hole projector' about 50 years ago, projecting his still ticking watch on to the wall with a cardboard box and a standard 200 Watt light bulb, the boxes were our kerosine heater delivery boxes, We did use one lens though from memory in the middle of the box. I still have our family 'Box Brownie' and negatives from the period before that. I have some very small prints of the NZ Exhibition that my grandfather or uncle took and the quality is very high, I have scanned them for wikipedia along with entire state housing projects his company worked on. I'm assuming that as my father and grandfathers are deceased that I can use their photos, which were given to us by successively passing them down. I have great-grandfathers material as well. There is rich kiwi history in there.moza

Actually I raised the matter of the Alexander Turnbull Library at Commons in the middle of last year. It was referred to the Wikimedia Board correction: it was referred to the OTRS. Eventually Jimbo Wales had an email sent to the ATL and basically told them that they had no right to put conditions on old images. Hence my many uploads from that source, many (but not all) of which are under Commons Category:Maori. Generally anything before 1900 is long out of copyright. I kind of draw the line at 1930, ie 70 years plus. Kahuroa 19:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Following the advice here, I've added a couple of photos from the Alexander Turnbull Library to Commons and 1931 Hawke's Bay earthquake. The author died in 1943, making these public domain in New Zealand, but not matching the 70 years after death of some countries. If I've misinterpreted the rules, please tell me.-gadfium 21:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you've done it right - the info you've added to the commons image pages is good. PD-old is an appropriate licence. Kahuroa

This sheet from the National Library (which incorporates the Alexander Turnbull Library) seems to cover a lot of these questions.
With a work of unknown authorship or a posthumous publication, the copyright period is 50 years after the work was first made available to the public. (emphasis mine)
also,
Publications by the Crown dated 1944 or earlier are out of copyright. For publications by the Crown published in 1945 or later, the copyright period is 100 years after the work was made.
What I am curious about is how do these rules apply to digitised works? For example, the Wellington City Library has some pictures online that would be very useful example. Is it okay to just copy these, and put them on Wikipedia, or would you have to make your own scan of the document?

As an aside, has anyone else had trouble using Timelines? I can't get it going for more than a few minutes at a time.--Efil's god 14:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

it can go wonky at times, especially if you have multiple searches going in different windows. Apart from that its not too bad. Kahuroa 22:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats awesome, I really gotta check that out - if the 100 year copyright term only came into being in 1944, we have access to quite a bit of material, such as much WWII stuff... MadMaxDog 14:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

One thing to watch out for is this from the otherwise interesting [www.enzb.auckland.ac.nz Early NZ books project]: Section 25 of the Act prescribes that "copyright in a typographical arrangement of a published edition expires at the end of the period of 25 years from the end of the calendar year in which the edition is first published." Copyright in Early New Zealand Books electronic editions is vested in the University of Auckland Library. - SimonLyall 21:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Many of these questions are probably better asked at Commons, where they deal with this sort of stuff all the time. AFAIK digital images of two dimensional works out of copyright have the same copyright as the original - unless you have added some demonstrably artistic or creative component of your own. Kahuroa 22:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Brief summary re Commons and the ATL

Commons User:Pfctdayelise, an experienced user at Commons, gave me his brief summary of the discussion about this at Commons last year. I'll give some excerpts here - or for the fuller version see my talk at Commons. The OTRS he mentions is Commons:OTRS. Excerpts start:

• the issue was discussed within OTRS rather than the Board per-se. However Brad Patrick, our then-legal counsel, and Jimmy Wales, were both aware of the issue and agreed that we (Wikimedia) should only respect copyright claims that are steeped in, you know, law and evidence and stuff. :) That's my summary of that discussion. So it's not that "great, we can tell libraries to go to hell with their fake copyright claims" but more, "we believe that the term of copyright has expired on X item and we respectfully disagree that any further copyright can apply to this item". Something like that.
• There's no published summary [of the discussion within OTRS] and there's kinda unlikely to be one, because of the difficulty of making a broadly applicable statement that is actually true. Copyright is painfully difficult and there's many "exceptions" and "what about...?" cases in every country and every situation.
• So I would just say that any 2D copy of a 2D document whose copyright has expired according to the relevant copyright laws, is PD-old and acceptable on Commons. Note the two important weasel clauses:

1. 2D document - coins are not 2D, vases are not 2D, statues are not 2D, etc. basically only paper is 2D more or less.
2. relevant copyright laws - can be tricky to work out, depending on whether or not the document was ever published, if so in which country, and which country was the author born in, which country did the author live in, was the document a 'work for hire' etc etc etc. But most of these caveats won't affect your old images under discussion I think.

• the Foundation is really unlikely to ever make any official statement about copyrights given their complexity. However the good news is the Foundation recently hired a new legal counsel. So if you do get any truly curly questions, we have someone official to ask.

Excerpts end. So hope that helps. Kahuroa 11:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Most translated article on a New Zealand school

User:Per Angusta is getting the article Auckland Grammar School translated into as many languages as possible. I'm not sure quite why, but I see no harm in the endeavour. Anyone inclined to supply additional translations or extend any already made would be welcome, I'm sure.-gadfium 00:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Judging by his username, I'd say he's pretty proud of the school ;-) But as you say, no harm in it. MadMaxDog 03:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of Maori names at WT:PLACES

Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (places)#Places in New Zealand.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 19:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been hoping someone else would answer, but no one has and the question deserves a reply, so I've put my views forward. I think a fuller discussion would be a good idea. Please contribute at the page linked above.-gadfium 09:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio?

Image:Wp centre2..jpg on the Christchurch article looks far too much like this image for me. MadMaxDog 06:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Identical, except for the logo over the door. Any idea what the new logo is meant to be?Efil's god 10:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Mhhh, hadn't seen the different logo. My feeling was simply that no one would take a photo himself and then reduce it to that size... MadMaxDog 11:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Logo visible in these versions: [11] and [12] and [13] Kahuroa 19:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

In those ones, you can see that the blobs in the windows and foreground are people. They are consistent between photos, so they must come from the same source picture, possibly an artists impression.Efil's god 02:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

List of schools in New Zealand

List of schools in New Zealand has long been a navigational nightmare. I've tidied up the table of contents which makes it possible to see what the present structure of the page is, and made some suggestions on the talk page for improvements. Any comments there would be welcome.-gadfium 01:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Issues with Robert Lawson (architect) and Seacliff Lunatic Asylum

Hi all. I'd like your take on this matter (tell me if I acted wrong too, but I obviously do hope for at least some assent):

I just started the Seacliff Lunatic Asylum article (if its still a bit rough when you look at it, well, I won't get it finished tonight). (Correction - can stand on its own now, pretty well in fact) As part of that work (maybe a little early) I placed a 'main'-link in the corresponding section of the Robert Lawson (architect) article. I also condensed some parts of that section, which concerned themselves in relative detail with the asylum.

Oh, boy, it seems I hit somebody's nerve. It got reverted immediately, and I basically got told off for fiddling with an FA article, in a way that to me strongly evoked WP:OWN concerns (Full disclosure: I know those feelings myself, as people who have looked at Auckland recently may have noticed).

The spat is available at (Talk:Robert Lawson (architect)), in the two (currently) last sections.MadMaxDog 10:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No that is not correct. You were advised to write and research a new page but not at the expense and shortening of a complete and comprehensive page. That is all, nothng more. Giano 10:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Reserve

Would a recreational reserve (with lots of nature) be correct in Category:Nature reserves in New Zealand? What do people think? MadMaxDog 16:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Category:Parks in New Zealand would be more appropriate?-gadfium 20:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Christianity in New Zealand article

A dispute has arisen over the Christianity in New Zealand article. I'd welcome the views of the community at large. -- Vardion 07:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, it seems to have worked out. Although it would still be nice to have an outside opinion as to what the article should end up looking like. -- Vardion 08:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I did some work on it, but did not really change it substance-wise. Not really my topic. Cheers. MadMaxDog 11:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

VC

Corporal Bill (Willy) Apiata has just been awarded the Victoria Cross for bravery under fire in Afghanistan in 2004... any article on it?

See Willy Apiata.-gadfium 04:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

List of patriotic songs

Any NZ songs that might be included here? (Bliss? Nature? Counting the Beat? Dominion Road? 10 Guitars? Ei Po? I Love My Leather Jacket? Ball Gowns And Small Towns? Sailing Away? Long Ago? ) All I can think of is 80s pop songs. - SimonLyall 05:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Gutter Black? (theme to Outrageous Fortune).-gadfium 08:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Pokarekare Ana would be my first pick. -- Avenue 15:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

But that's a song about a broken hearted lover, not about New Zealand. Kahuroa 20:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

True, but unfortunately, most of the people singing it don't have a clue what the words mean. It does seem to be used as a patriotic song, even if doing so makes no logical sense. -- Vardion 21:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any of them make sense in a traditional patriotic sense. After all, Bliss is an anti-drinking satire, which has become a popular drinking anthem, and is now verging on patriotic. If we want something slightly newer than all the (admittedly great) 80s songs, I personally couldn't got past Home Again (... put your clocks back for the winter -- daylight savings has never sounded so romantic). Some of the Muttonbirds songs have a slightly more tangible sense of place (Dominion Road, Wellington), but at risk of an over generalisation, I don't think New Zealanders would be much up for a rah-rah NZ song. Sailing Away probably comes the closest.--Limegreen 22:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Just because a song is popular and iconic that doesn't make it patriotic. The only ones I can think of that might fit the bill are God Defend New Zealand, Sailing Away and Stand Up. --Helenalex 23:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if Fred Dagg's We Don't Know How Lucky We Are would count. (Do people actually sing it much? I wouldn't necessarily know.) -- Vardion 23:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Alfred Hill wrote a song called Aotearoa. In 3/4 time. Patriotic yeah, heard-of? Na. Kahuroa 00:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come now folks. There are quite a number of them - "Sailing away" and "Stand up" have been mentioned, but what about "Shaky isles" (Dave Dobbyn), "Six months in a leaky boat" (Split Enz - "Aotearoa, rugged individual", anyone?), "Neutral and nuclear free" (Shona Laing - she also did a song called "Aotearoa", IIRC), "Give 'em a taste of kiwi" (Murray Grindley, IIRC)... Grutness...wha? 01:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Loyal - Dave Dobbyn. Lannah 01:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

And "Slice of Heaven", while we're on the Dobbyn theme... Mostlyharmless 07:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Great song, but it's that relationship failure theme again... Kahuroa 11:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe a patriotic song has to have an overtly patriotic theme. Waltzing Matilda is about a sheep-stealer committing suicide when he's caught, but try telling an Aussie that it isn't patriotic. -- Avenue 20:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome Home would count surely? It was sung at the NZ War Memorial dedication in London. Video on YouTube BigBadaboom0 07:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Maori Batallion March to Victory, Give'em a Taste of Kiwi - (A one-off single was also released in 1980 called "Give 'Em A Taste Of Kiwi"/"Bondi Blues". This was by Black Bolt and the Silver Ferns, who were actually Murray Grindley and Neil Edwards, with Red McKelvie and Murray McNabb. The single reached 36 on the national charts.) [14] dramatic 23:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There are two lists of folksongs and apra top 100 . None of them really jump out at me though. "Sailing away" and "Give'em a Taste of Kiwi" are really songs to promote teams, neither is heard much these days. I doubt anyone under 30 would know them or sing them at a sports event or similar. - SimonLyall 08:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions for Government Agencies

On Talk:State sector organisations in New Zealand I have asked an ugly question about the Naming conventions for Government Agencies. I am suggesting the general convention should change from New Zealand Agency Name to Agency Name (New Zealand) to follow the Wikipedia:Naming conventions and want your feedback. -- Cameron Dewe 11:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• It's worth noting that for many of them the official name is "New Zealand X Agency", so by changing in the way you're suggesting, we'll be giving them incorrect names. Grutness...wha? 01:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If you read the naming conventions and my proposal then things will become clearer. I am not proposing to change the titles on articles about agencies with New Zealand in their official name - that is permitted by the naming conventions. What I am proposing is to change the title of articles that do not have New Zealand in their official name but do have it in the front of the article title. This is about a correction of names to follow the naming conventions. -- Cameron Dewe 09:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Photo request

Hello, all! I've been writing quite a bit about the Australian/New Zealand/Southeast Asian botanical family Stylidiaceae (currently working on creating species stub pages). Some of these genera, specifically Phyllachne, Forstera, Donatia, and Oreostylidium are of interest to New Zealand. I've been trying to locate public domain photos for these genera but can't seem to find a single one. I was wondering if any of you might be willing to share photos you have of Oreostylidium or Donatia or might be kind enough to think of it next time you're out in their habitat. You might know the genera Donatia and Phyllachne collectively as "cushion plants". Any help would be appreciated, since I'm half a world away. Thanks! --Rkitko ^(talk) 18:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Might be a long shot, but you might try emailing the NZ Department of Conservation (Address here) and ask whether they have any images they would be willing to release into the public domain for use on Wikipedia. Point to your articles, and give specific species you need pix of. Then the hassle starts - you need to get them to fill in a Commons email permission form so the images are legit on Commons. I wish our government departments were like those in the US where all their images are automatically public domain. Good luck! Kahuroa 00:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. An editor on de. has already contacted them about the image available on the website, but I hadn't thought about images that they didn't publish. Unfortunately, the image they have isn't that great and I figured they'd publish the best one. Anyway, I'm patient, so if anyone thinks about it or knows a NZ botanist, I'd appreciate it. I'm also trying to obtain seed so I can grow the plants here in the US and take detailed photos of the flowers. Perhaps a vacation to NZ is in order ;-) Cheers, --Rkitko ^(talk) 17:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, they might not release very good quality images. Here are a couple of links that might be useful for botanist contacts: [15], [16]. There is also the New Zealand Alpine Garden Society (see [17]). I wonder if there are any of these plants growing in the botanic gardens in Auckland or in other cities? I'd take some photos if there were Kahuroa 19:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent idea. I'll e-mail around to see if the botanic gardens have any in their collections. Thanks for all the connections and links! --Rkitko ^(talk) 23:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone from the Auckland Botanic Gardens just got back to me and unfortunately they don't have any of these specimens in their collections. I'll keep trying elsewhere, though, and push onward with the other organizations mentioned that might have photos available. I did finally find a PD image of Donatia: Image:Donatia fascicularis from Endeavour voyage.jpg but it's a few centuries old and I'd like something a bit more up-to-date ;-) Thanks for your help, again! --Rkitko ^(talk) 18:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I might be able to take some photos of some of them when the weather improves. I work 10 minutes away from the Wellington Botanical gardens. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I e-mailed the Wellington Botanical garden to see if they have these species in their collections but they haven't gotten back to me yet. I'll let you know if they do. Thanks for your offer! Rkitko ^(talk) 18:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggest you check with Dunedin Botanic Gardens - too far south for me to help if they have them, but there are Wikipedians there. Kahuroa 01:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

On this subject, just a reminder to folks that there are several long-standing phot requests in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in New Zealand, too. Grutness...wha? 01:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Meetup

Hey, from what I have read above/on the previous meetup pages, the previous agreements were to have auckland meetups every 6 months or so. Does that mean that the next meetup will be in august, and if so, is anything official yet? If not, i'd be happy to help organise it, as I am very keen to attend. What locations/dates/etc were already decided on? Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 10:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

We haven't decided anything yet, but I was thinking it might be nice to have the next one too. MadMaxDog 10:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to get in early, I'm not available on the weekend of 25-26 August, or on the afternoon of 18 August. The 11th, 12th or 19th would be good.-gadfium 20:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and create the auckland 3 meetup page, as a starter, and to centralise discussion. See Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland 3. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 04:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Auckland Meetup - 11 August 2007 1pm

Date: Saturday 11 August 2007; Time: 1pm - 4pm; Venue: Ironique in Mt Eden. Please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland 3 for details. You can also watch Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland to be informed of future NZ meetups. Linnah 13:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

IRC

If anyone here uses IRC, I went ahead and created the channel #wikipedia-nz. If anyone's interested, join the channel when you're next on IRC. I'll be on it a lot most weekends, and evenings most days. Hopefully itll make discussion a bit easier, and since we're all in the same timezone (well, 99% of the time) it shouldn't be too hard to find people you want to talk to who are online. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 11:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Which IRC network is this on? I think you'll find there are many IRC networks. There's no #wikipedia-nz in Undernet. Linnah 18:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC) (who is biased and tends to prefer Undernet)

It's on the IRC network every other wikipedia channel is on - freenode (irc.freenode.com). See WP:IRC. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that there is also a #wikimedia-nz Brian | (Talk) 00:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I believed that was primarily for the wikimedia chapter, not for general NZ and nzers discussion. If I was mistaken, please correct me. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 00:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Your correct. It was used a for a while, for WP related stuff as well, however, fell in to disuse. I'll hang out in channel (wikipedia-nz), I am on IRC most evenings atm Brian | (Talk) 05:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I've managed to connect and I can see Brian there (he was idle) (spot the IRC newbie).--Mendors 09:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yay! It's going to actually be used. I'll be on it a lot, so ill see everyone on IRC :-) Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 12:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hoax?

The articles The Legend of Rahi, much of Thomas Ellison (now rewritten by me) and therefore also perhaps Ki-o-rahi seem to be possible hoaxes to me. The Legend of Rahi seems fake - doesn't read like a true legend at all - seems to be a grab bag containing a unique assemblage of every kind of legendary creature, the giant eagle, moa's eggs, friendly eagles, taniwha, wizards, stars aligned in the heavens, a cave, mountains, islands, a lake, patupaiarehe, balls being woven, kites being flown, spells cast, the cooking and eating of a taniwha - (unheard of), magic rocks, mystic fogs, ice pathways - enough already! All this supposedly in a story from the Tainui area collected during the filming of Te Karere at Turangawaewae, and some words in non-Tainui dialect to boot. Thing is, Te Karere is a ten minute or so studio based talking head news show, not one that does any 'filming' on location per se. Thomas Ellison is apparently a real person, but the references in the article to Ki-o-rahi etc seem odd. Is it possible that Ki-o-rahi is itself a hoax - I have never heard of it until I read about it on Wikipedia - the 'source' such as it is appears to be this page on this personal website. Any ideas folks? Kahuroa 11:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It's all outside of my realm of expertise, but I did wonder about Ki-o-rahi when I first saw it mentioned on Wikipedia. Someone at Otago University should be able to follow up and verify the last paragraph.-gadfium 23:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The article is unreferenced, unsourced and uncited. It seems to hold no encyclopaedic quality. Remember Wikipedia isn't a storybook. Is there a Wiki project that is? Possibly it belongs there, but definately not here. --Hayden5650 00:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Another thing is that the words relating to Ki o rahi, the ball etc, do not appear with the translations suggested in any dictionary. They would if it were real. The uploader has also inserted sections into other articles, which I have taken out. As Hayden says, Wiki is not a storybook. Its original writing, not citing a genuine source. Kahuroa 00:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I have rewritten Thomas Ellison and will nominate The Legend of Rahi and Ki-o-rahi for deletion. The Otago Uni paper is a physical education paper from a Māori perspective. The online blurb says nothing to suggest any connection with Ki-o-rahi Kahuroa 01:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

See the Talk:Ki-o-rahi . The game appears to exist and people claim to have played it. I wonder if perhaps it was invented by somebody 20 years ago ( probably as a "get the kids off the streets" thing) and given a history at the time. Certainly there doesn't seem much evidence for itbeing hundreds of years old let alone Rugby being derived by it. I've reverted some edits by User:Sashablu who also seems to have scattered references to it around. - SimonLyall 01:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Simon, good catch - I think when this stuff first began to be inserted in Wiki I came across the Herald article and so I held off. Interesting that someone like Pat Hohepa cannot find any trad refs to it. You may well be right - that it is a recent invention. Seems contradictory to claim that it was 'suppressed' yet also supported by leading figures like Apirana Ngata and others as per insertions by User:Sossos in that and other articles. Anyway I have nominated them for deletion so we'll see what comes of it. Yech, first time I have done AfD, what a confusing process. Anyway, assuming I have done it right, the discussion for both The Legend of Rahi and Ki-o-rahi is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Legend of Rahi. Kahuroa 02:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)