Jump to content

Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:NZWNB)
"Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand" redirects here. For the WikiProject itself, see Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand.
Shortcut
New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board
This page is a notice board for things that are particularly relevant to New Zealand Wikipedians.

You are encouraged to add your name to the list of New Zealand Wikipedians.

Click here to start a new discussion
New Zealand time and date: 13:19 9 November 2024 NZST (refresh)
Universal time and date: 01:19 9 November 2024 UTC (refresh)
Notice: Since November 2014 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand has redirected to this page. Archives for the page can be found below.
Wikinews has media related to: New Zealand

Archives

[edit]

Article alerts

[edit]

Did you know

Articles for deletion

Proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Templates for discussion

Files for discussion

Featured list candidates

Good article nominees

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

Neutrality of article for Phil Mauger (mayor of Christchurch)

[edit]

Kia ora, I've made some efforts to improve the neutrality of the article for the current mayor of Christchurch. This had previously been correctly tagged as non-neutral, and I agree with the editor that tagged it that it "read like a political hit-job". To be clear I am not a fan of the man politically but even I thought it was over-the-top. The non-neutral content was added by an IP editor.

Could other editors please take a look at the article in its current state and weigh in on the talk page? Ideally it would be good to get contributors from outside Christchurch with no strong opinions on him as a political figure. Thanks. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still suffers from the issues most political BLPs suffer from, which is primary sourcing used to add content and a timeline/news type prose. But it is much better than what it was before. I wouldn't even mention the trench thing but he did get fined for it, but really that's a reflection on the Council more than him. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, the trench thing resulted in a great deal of support by voters for him. Schwede66 21:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible, a lot of people will interpret it as an overzealous council exerting power for someone solving a problem they should have dealt with themselves. Although a source stating that would be ideal. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 coverage

[edit]

Hi everyone, I have been working on the Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in New Zealand page for the past four years and eight months. I am thinking of ending my work on the COVID timeline at the end of December 2024. New Zealand health authorities no longer treat COVID-19 as a pandemic and have ended all lockdown and vaccine mandate policies. Wikipedia no longer has a global timeline. I'll continue covering the Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19 Lessons Learned since it is ongoing and there is sufficient media coverage. Let me know what you think. Andykatib (talk) 07:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think that is a good idea. To be honest with you, looking at the 2024 timeline, it appears that it could have already ended in December 2023 as it is pretty much only case numbers now, as opposed to government response or something like that. ―Panamitsu (talk) 07:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The pandemic's still going on [1] - it's just that the government has given up on taking any serious action against it. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
19 deaths per week is on par with diabetes mellitus, it is endemic now and aside from the RNZ primary reporting there is no real coverage of it anymore to warrant continued updates/timelines. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever is decided here, one thing is for sure: you've done an amazing job, Andykatib. Well done! Schwede66 09:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded, this is an amazing display of consistency in editing.
I think its ok to retire this series. As you say, for better or for worse it seems society is moving on. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 09:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone for your feedback. Will continue until 31 December and then wrap up after that. Only four more months before the end of the year. Cheers. Andykatib (talk) 14:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Waipareira#Requested move 23 August 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Waipareira#Requested move 23 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans 15:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fisher and Paykel sourcing

[edit]

This discussion Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#whybuy.com.au relating to sourcing at Fisher & Paykel might be of interest. More generally, the F&P article is in need of sources especially for the early history. Nil Einne (talk) 11:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Green's October 2024 edit-a-thon

[edit]

Hello New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in October 2024!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2024, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Grnrchst (talk) 12:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Colenso's "history of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi" to Wikisource

[edit]

Since it seems topical ATM, I've started a quick project to add William Colenso's The authentic and genuine history of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, New Zealand, February 5 and 6, 1840 to wikisource. Its a short pamphlet - only 42 pages - but I'd love some help with it. IdiotSavant (talk) 04:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And its been proofed in a day, with only some validation to go. Thanks to all the people who helped!--IdiotSavant (talk) 12:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IdiotSavant Validation is now complete._Marshelec (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's more, it turns out to be the 6500th work validated on English Wikisource. See Portal:Proofreading milestones, where Mr. Colenso keeps company with Joe Biden, William Blake and Isaac Newton. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-a-thon & walking tour Women in Architecture NZ 21 & 22 September 2024

[edit]

Saturday 21 September 2024 Walking Tour and Wikipedia Edit-a-thon

[edit]

We‘re please to welcome another Wikipedia Walking Tour and Edit-a-thon for 2024. The two-part event will be running over two days, the walking tour on Saturday (for photos) and the edit-a-thon on Sunday.

This is a continuation from past edit-a-thons increase articles about women and non-binary people who work in architecture and related fields in or from Aotearoa New Zealand.

Please feel free to sign up to the dash board and contribute remotely, or attend in person if you are in Auckland - we appreciate all contributions.

Project link: A+W NZ Wikiproject Edit-a-thon 22 SEPTEMBER 2024 ~ Pakoire (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian at Large applications close 30 September 2024

[edit]

The Wikipedian at Large role is a roving advocate for Wikimedia platforms and content projects for groups and organisations around a region or even the whole country – a helping hand with outreach and development and supported by WANZ. Like a Wikipedian in Residence, they can work inside an institution to share content, train staff, and run outreach events. The role moves quickly, doing shorter projects than a traditional Wikipedian in Residence, with the flexibility to involve different groups in different ways. They mainly work under their own steam, with some administrative support from WANZ. The Wikipedian in Large needs to measure and report on their goals during their term, and make a final report once finished.

We fund one Wikipedian at Large role per year – usually six months but potentially longer. We’re interested in getting proposals from anyone who cares about getting more people editing and more of Aotearoa New Zealand’s stories told through the Wikiverse.

Like we Wiki editors say, Be Bold! WANZ will consider all proposals seriously. If you have any questions or would like advice on putting together your proposal, email info@wikimedia.nz.

Full details of the role and process CopperAlchemy (talk) 01:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Papers Past text correction

[edit]

Users are now able to correct the OCR text of historical newspapers in Papers Past. Info at https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/help/text-corrections. Nurg (talk) 04:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I might change my handle to Winston Smith. Quilt Phase (talk) 05:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

This image: [2] is used on the Heritage New Zealand website: [3] where it is stated that permission must be obtained to use it; however the image is from 1906 before copyright law existed (to my knowledge). The photographer died in 1972 so based on life of author it won't be out of copyright until 2042 but I was under the impression that copyright law did not apply to works before the 1920s. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NZ copyright is life plus 50 so if the photographer died in 1972 the copyright expired 1 January 2023, and its PD in the United States since its from before 1929, so you can upload that to commons. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I thought we were in line with the US on copyright. I see that the Heritage NZ page is simply just not updated to reflect the status of the image. But does NZ's copyright apply to such old works? Images I see published around that time are mentioned as not being copyright. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i dont think there's a date before which copyright stops applying in nz, its just life + 50 (or just 50 years for anonymous works) TheLoyalOrder (talk) 01:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the law now. But it has been different in the past. Until 1995 photographs were protected for a flat 50 years. As a result, any photograph taken before 1944 is in the public domain. In 1995 the law was changed to the (current) life + 50 years, so if a photo was taken after 1944, you need to check if the author died in 1973 or earlier. So this particular photo is NZ-PD on both counts anyway.
There's a handy guide here which includes all the odd cases (like posthumous works published pre-1995 - very annoying). IdiotSavant (talk) 14:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National online meetup - Sunday 15 September - 12:00 noon

[edit]

This is a reminder that the next national online meetup is on tomorrow, Sunday 15 September from 12:00 noon. The page including the meeting link is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Aotearoa_New_Zealand_Online/53 .Marshelec (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it spelled or spelt in NZE?

[edit]

To put it simply. After a legnthy discussion regarding the '-ed' and '-t' past tense, I think I can summarize on what I've learned in the discussion in 3 points.

1. Sources may differ on what they consider as "correct". Some New Zealand authors will use the '-ed' spellings while other authors might use the '-t' spelling. For example, this Radio New Zealand article mentions spelled and this article mentions spelt. A 1940s publication (Maori Place-names of Canterbury) has inconsistencies with the spelling. [4]


Riccarton is Putaringamotu, and it is spelled such to the present day. p. 102

Deep Creek was known to Māori as Pari-haka. This name can be spelt in quite a variety of ways... p. 37


Furthermore, it's acceptable to say: McDougall learned te reo Māori.[5] or I’ve learnt that people...[6]. Further inconsistencies regarding the spelling include The Press articles: burned through 650 hectares and the 2024 Port Hills fire burnt native bush [7]. It also seems New Zealand publications prefer 'knelt' over 'kneeled', e.g. An officer knelt...[8]


2. New Zealand English dictionaries might differ between what they consider as 'correct', some will list spelt first then list spelled as an alternative.

3. Editors should also be aware of MOS:RETAIN before changing a '-t' spelling to an 'ed' spelling in an article ( or other way around). Of course NZE overwhelmingly prefers realise instead of realize. For example, Ricardo realized his mistake would be inappropriate changes for NZE. Changing spelled to spelt (or the other way around) would be appropriate changes but editors should be aware of MOS:RETAIN, since both spellings are considered valid. Alexeyevitch(talk) 08:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:RETAIN does not apply to individual terms but instead styles of national varieties of English. It also states it is acceptable when the 'change reduces ambiguity'. Spelt reflects the pronounciation used in New Zealand English and differentiates other spell words where the past participle is pronounced distinctly. Such as livestock spelling.
It is annoying having to deal with all this to fix a spelling error because you have some bizarre idée fixe against this British English--and by extension New Zealand English. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might see it as an error, but NZ publications use '-ed' as much as '-t'. An example of a spelling error would be "Parakaiore" in the last paragraph of this article it should of been written as "Parakiore". When a New Zealand publication writes "spelled" instead of "spelt" it's not an error. Alexeyevitch(talk) 09:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copyediting has been out-sourced to the third world for decades if it still is performed at all. That combined with American spell-checkers has led to many errors in the news. Tertiary sources do not support your novel theory. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, whether or not RETAIN applies technically, it is very consistent with how we apply style decisions like this across the board. If two ways are equally acceptable, we try to minimise lengthy debates and, frankly, stupid edit wars over matters of no importance to substance. See: Wikipedia:Don't edit war over the colour of templates. — HTGS (talk) 00:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we could determine a consensus and create clear guidance about what we consider acceptable NZ English. We already know that favorite and authorized is not NZ English and it should be favourite and authorised in articles written in NZ English. A notable exception to this is when an American sealer charted Foveaux Strait and he wrote it down as "Favorites Strait", appearing in some early maps and American logbooks. Anyways, a guide for editors may be helpful when writting in New Zealand English whether to use the '-ed' spelling or the '-t' spelling. Gaining consensus and what other editors think of this, is the best option IMO. Alexeyevitch(talk) 09:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think New Zealand English has a clear consensus on this in the same way that we do for -our and -ise, and to be honest I don't think we need (or are able) to determine one either. Editors should use whichever spelling they prefer, but should also respect whichever spelling others have used and not go around changing it for the sake of changing it. I prefer -t over -ed, but I'm not going to work my way through the WPNZ articles updating that. Turnagra (talk) 10:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1/ Both are possible - there's your answer. 2/ There isn't really any such thing as NZ English - it is an invention of those who love catagorising things. There are really only two catagories of English - UK and US - that relates to spelling and pronunciation and occasionally to grammar. Accents don't count, neither does more frequent use of certain words. That means the English spoken in NZ is British English that has developed its own style. It is no different from regions in the UK that have their own style, their own accents and their own use of certain words. In NZ the grammar, pronunciation and spelling is the same as British English, because it is a form of British English. I know that might sound odd to those who are looking to fit the English spoken in NZ into a special box of its own, but I think it's correct. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any reliable sources that back up your incredibly bold claim here? Especially as it seems to go against literally every prevailing consensus about variations of English. Turnagra (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NZ English being developed from British English and following the rules of Queen's English is something stated in most books about NZ English. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh absolutely, I'm not disagreeing with that - I'm disagreeing with the assertion that there isn't really any such thing as NZ English. Turnagra (talk) 05:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked around a bit in my circles, and it is pretty much a 50/50 split between "spelled/spelt".
For burned/burnt, one person suggested it depends on whether the word is being used as a verb or an adjective. Eg "I burned the toast" is a past-tense verb, versus "The toast is burnt" where it is an adjective. This doesn't seem to be universally applicable, though, to the other words; I think it is just a matter of personal preference.
I think the root issue is that language has shifted a bit, and there is no strictly "right" way to go anymore. NZ has adopted some Americanisms here. Such is the changing nature of language.
I would say that if the article is in NZ English, just use whichever you prefer. If someone else has used an option you do not prefer, just leave it alone. I think that accurately reflects the current common usage of English in NZ. We aren't here to right great wrongs. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to note that for users with access to the Wikipedia Library, the Oxford Reference website has The New Zealand Oxford Dictionary available. Here are some relevant excerpts:
  • spell: transitive verb (past and past part. spelt or spelled)
  • burn: verb (past and past part. burnt or burned)
  • learn: verb (past and past part. learned /lə:nt/ /lə:nd/ or learnt / lə:nt/)
  • kneel: intransitive verb (past and past part. knelt /nelt/ or esp. (US) kneeled)
To head off any criticism that they are hedging by including the US spelling, they always mark it as such when they do this:
  • colour: noun verb ((US) color)
From this I would conclude that either spelling variant is considered normal and acceptable in NZ. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all entries label it as US when it is a US spelling. Anaesthesia does not explicitly list the American form as being US nor does Aestivation. Spelt has a separate entry whilst spelled does not. Reed's dictionary also does not include it. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cloventt. I've also asked a few New Zealanders this question recently, most of them said both (which means that there is no preference or they use them interchangeably) One person I know prefers the '-t' spelling and another person prefers the '-ed' spelling. Alexeyevitch(talk) 23:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, regarding spelt and spelled, both are possible. There is, IMO, an assumption here resulting in flawed reasoning. The NZ Oxford dictionary is what it says: it is not a dictionary of NZ English. It is the oxford english dictionary for use in another country and as such it includes some words and phrases more often used in NZ. It could do exactly the same for, say, a 'Norfolk English Dictionary', which would probably contain many more quirks of vocabulary than the NZ version. (but Norfolk isn't a separate country so why bother?) Verb forms are interesting as noted above. Another point of confusion for some is that sometimes two versions are not always interchangable and mean different things. Hanged and hung for example. 'The WP editor washung from a tree branch as he tried to imitate a chimpanzee' and 'the WP was hanged from a tree branch as he went to meet his maker'. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, spelled suggests a different word that than 'to spell it out' to myself and other Kiwis. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Heinemann New Zealand Dictionary (which is NZE) mentions both (spelled and spelt). Alexeyevitch(talk) 00:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Green Lane Hospital, Auckland#Requested move 18 September 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Green Lane Hospital, Auckland#Requested move 18 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 12:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article nominations - backlog drive during October

[edit]

There is a backlog drive during October, to reduce the list of Good Article nominations that are waiting for a reviewer. There are almost 600 nominations currently waiting, across a huge range of topics. If you haven't done a GA nomination review before, please consider taking on at least one. It is often a good learning experience and develops your own capability. It also makes an important contribution to the encyclopedia, and helps the nominating editor. For more details of the backlog drive, see: Wikipedia:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/October 2024. _Marshelec (talk) 04:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I'm currently reviewing Rocket Lab. Schwede66 04:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great stuff. I am reviewing the nomination of Wymington. It has been a good experience so far, but the review is currently on hold waiting for the nominator to become active again. I aim to review at least one other GA nomination during the month._Marshelec (talk) Marshelec (talk) 04:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 WikiCon Christchurch - 16, 17 and 18 May 2025

[edit]

Have you registered for WikiCon Christchurch yet? This is the last month for early bird registrations, so get along to https://events.humanitix.com/2025-wikicon-aotearoa-chch and sign up today! Remember you can also request topics you’re keen to see included in the programme, and offer to lead a workshop or give a presentation on something you’re passionate about! CopperAlchemy (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Census demographics for localities

[edit]

I have a new Python program to parse the 2023 census data released yesterday. It works on the SA2 areas I've tried it on, and also on SA3 and larger areas, except that the first paragraph uses {{NZ population data 2023 SA2}} and that will need to be altered to use {{NZ population data 2018}} for some areas, and scrapped for those that the 2018 template doesn't support. The program should support SA1 areas as well, but this is untested and since it uses different tables from the SA2 and larger, at least minor breakage is to be expected.

The ethnicities graph is an experiment. We haven't decent graph support on Wikipedia for a couple of years since the old graphics module was found to be insecure. If a new graphics module is implemented which supports stacked bars, I'll add 2018 and 2013 ethnicity data to it (or if there's something better than {{Bar chart}} on Wiki I don't know about).

The religion pie chart is an experiment that doesn't quite work, and I expect I'll remove it before adding these demographics to articles. It requires segments to be in order of size, so the "no answer" segment is always somewhere in the middle, while I would prefer it to be at the end, and there will be no consistency in the order of segments from one article to the next. The numbers I give it are rounded to one decimal place, so they don't exactly add up to 100%, and the chart adjusts "Other" to compensate, and in some cases the numbers add up to more than 100% so "Other" is reported as negative. The order of segments and the number for "Other" doesn't match the text given elsewhere in the demographics. Again, if there's an alternative on-wiki tool I am not aware of, please let me know.

In the text and pie chart, I only show religions which have adherents in the area. I include Islam and Judaism if appropriate as well as those shown in the example below.

Any improvements in grammar or style are welcome (e.g. should I always give both numbers and percentages?), as are suggestions for additional content. I'm currently using the individual and dwellings tables, and you can see the wealth of data available in these tables from the reference links below. More tables can be found at https://explore.data.stats.govt.nz/ under Society->population structure. Each table can be expanded using the filters on the left side. They can be downloaded as an excel summary, or as a full csv file. I find the csv file is too large for my 2007 version of Excel to load, and also too large for OpenOffice Calc, but I can view it in Notepad++. The individual table is 6 Gb in CSV format.

You can compare the output here to the 2018 demographics at Waikaka#Waikaka statistical area.-Gadfium (talk) 03:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page formatting probably doesn't help but this feels far more bloated and cluttered than necessary. I don't think the extra graphs need to be included and some of the extra info could probably be omitted for the sake of brevity. Some of the other changes are odd like Islam not being mentioned anymore. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe collapsible information might help Traumnovelle (talk) 04:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great stuff, Gadfium. I’ve made two small edits as suggested tweaks. Otherwise all good. Schwede66 05:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It could be further tweaked to "chose not to answer the census question".-Gadfium (talk) 05:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just 'Religious affiliations were 50% Christianity, 30% no religion, 6% Hindu, 3% other religion, and 7% declined to answer' in line with the ethnicity section. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to something along those lines, but "no religion" is not actually a religious affiliation. Should I say "None" instead? I intend to order them according to the national figures, ie "None", "Christian", "Hinduism", "Islam", "Māori religions", "Buddhism", "Judaism" then "Other" and "No answer" last. Should I include "New Age", which is currently included in "Other"? There are more New Age adherents in NZ than religious Jews.-Gadfium (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As in '30% none'? How much are Judaism and New Age on average? Maybe it could be a case by case basis? If an area has a higher proportion of Jews for example it might be worth mentioning. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The national figures are None 51.5%, Christian 32.3%, Hinduism 2.9%, Islam 1.5%, Māori religions 1.3%, Buddhism 1.1%, New Age 0.4%, Judaism 0.1% and Other 2.0%. No answer was 6.8%. For the 2018 census, I folded everything below 1% nationally into the Other category. For this census, I was planning on including all who have at least 0.1% in each locality, but Judaism is so close to that figure that I'm wondering if it's worth including, but as the census included it I think I probably should too. I could move to two decimal places, so Waikaka would show as "Religious affiliations were 52.15% none, 37.11% Christian, 1.37% Hindu, 0.59% Buddhist and 0.98% had other religions. 7.81% of people did not answer the census question. There are no people with Islam, Māori religions or Judaism in Waikaka according to the 2023 census. I haven't yet altered the program for this output, but it looks like going to two decimal places isn't worth it.-Gadfium (talk) 01:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is best to just omit anything below 1% and put it into other given there are quite a few. Most Christian denominations will have more than those religions. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Religious affiliations were 52.1%: none" looks like an extremely odd phrase to me - could this be reworded, or even separated? Perhaps "52.1% of people stated no religious affiliation. Of those who did, 37.1% were Christian...", or alternatively flipping the figure - "47.9% of the population reported having a religious affiliation. Of the total population, 37.1% were Christian..." Prosperosity (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps changing the wording for "291 (24.2%) people had only high school qualifications" slightly, to "291 (24.2%) people exclusively held high school qualifications" or something similar? The former feels a little negative towards people without further education.
Done.-Gadfium (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, would it be possible to list LGBTIQ+ as a percentage? I can't really express why, but something about seeing the raw number feels off, whereas "2.1% of people identified as LGBTIQ+" feels safer and more appropriate. Prosperosity (talk) 06:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Is the placing of this immediately after gender appropriate or would it fit better somewhere else?-Gadfium (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That's likely the best place. Prosperosity (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should I include languages spoken, which the individual table breaks down as "English" "Māori", "Samoan", "NZ Sign", "Other" and "None (eg too young to talk)"?-Gadfium (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have implemented the changes to religious affiliations as discussed with Traumnovelle above. I have removed the ethnicities bar graph and religions pie chart, as these have limited formatting controls and cannot be brought up to the standard of the historical population box. I corrected the national average income, which had not been updated from the 2018 census, and corrected an oversight in the code which prevented the statistical of high income earners being shown in the last paragraph.-Gadfium (talk) 02:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your work on this, Gadfium - it's looking great! My only thought was whether we need slightly different wording around ethnicities, along the lines of "identifying as" rather than what we've currently got. My main reasoning for this is that, even though it has the wording for being able to select more than one, it could be confusing with the numbers adding up to more than 100. Saying "89% of respondents identified as Pākehā" or words to that effect is probably clearer and less confusing than "89% of the suburb is Pākehā" when the numbers add up to over 100. I'm not super fussed on exactly what the wording to achieve that is, though. Turnagra (talk) 06:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've rearranged the ethnicity to emphasise this is an identity issue, and also mentioned that people who answer "New Zealander" are part of "other" (there were 36 in Waikaka who answered that, so less than the 0.1% cutoff). I've added spoken/signed languages. No one in Waikaka speaks Samoan. I've also rearranged the religious affiliations.

I try to avoid starting a sentence with a number, because the grammar rule I learned was to spell out the number in that case, but that does lead to awkward sentences sometimes. At present, two sentences start with a number: the LGBTIQ+ sentence and the one dealing with high income earners. I think that's an acceptable proportion of the content, but I welcome suggestions for a way to phrase those sentences without being too strained.-Gadfium (talk) 03:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waikaka covers 586.75 km2 (226.55 sq mi)[1] and had an estimated population of 1,680 as of June 2024,[2] with a population density of 2.9 people per km2.

Historical population
YearPop.±% p.a.
20131,554—    
20181,560+0.08%
20231,536−0.31%
Source: [3]

Waikaka had a population of 1,536 in the 2023 New Zealand census, a decrease of 24 people (−1.5%) since the 2018 census, and a decrease of 18 people (−1.2%) since the 2013 census. There were 801 males, 726 females and 6 people of other genders in 594 dwellings.[4] 2.1% of people identified as LGBTIQ+. The median age was 39.2 years (compared with 38.1 years nationally). There were 333 people (21.7%) aged under 15 years, 234 (15.2%) aged 15 to 29, 726 (47.3%) aged 30 to 64, and 240 (15.6%) aged 65 or older.[3]

People could identify as more than one ethnicity. The results were 89.3% European (Pākehā); 8.2% Māori; 0.8% Pasifika; 6.8% Asian; 0.4% Middle Eastern, Latin American and African New Zealanders (MELAA); and 4.9% other, which includes people giving their ethnicity as "New Zealander". English was spoken by 98.0%, Māori language by 1.4%, and other languages by 5.7%. No language could be spoken by 1.4% (e.g. too young to talk). New Zealand Sign Language was known by 0.4%. The percentage of people born overseas was 13.3, compared with 28.8% nationally.

Religious affiliations were 37.1% Christian, 1.4% Hindu, 0.6% Buddhist, 0.2% New Age, and 0.8% other religions. People who answered that they had no religion were 52.1%, and 7.8% of people did not answer the census question.

Of those at least 15 years old, 162 (13.5%) people had a bachelor's or higher degree, 708 (58.9%) had a post-high school certificate or diploma, and 291 (24.2%) people exclusively held high school qualifications. The median income was $47,300, compared with $41,500 nationally. 114 people (9.5%) earned over $100,000 compared to 12.1% nationally. The employment status of those at least 15 was that 756 (62.8%) people were employed full-time, 195 (16.2%) were part-time, and 12 (1.0%) were unemployed.[3]

References

  1. ^ "ArcGIS Web Application". statsnz.maps.arcgis.com. Retrieved 4 October 2024.
  2. ^ "Aotearoa Data Explorer". Statistics New Zealand. Retrieved 26 October 2024.
  3. ^ a b c "Totals by topic for individuals, (RC, TALB, UR, SA3, SA2, Ward, Health), 2013, 2018, and 2023 Censuses". Stats NZ - Tatauranga Aotearoa - Aotearoa Data Explorer. Waikaka (359600). Retrieved 3 October 2024.
  4. ^ "Totals by topic for dwellings, (RC, TALB, UR, SA3, SA2, Ward, Health), 2013, 2018, and 2023 Censuses". Stats NZ - Tatauranga Aotearoa - Aotearoa Data Explorer. Retrieved 3 October 2024.

Media coverage of the census

[edit]

There has been some media coverage of the second release of census results in October 2024, with a focus on the LGBT community and home ownership:

Not sure how to incorporate this information into the article. Or is it better to use the official census results? Andykatib 10:37, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a section heading as this is about the 2023 New Zealand census article. I suggest discussion should take place at Talk:2023 New Zealand census#Media coverage.-Gadfium (talk) 02:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neopanax colensoi listed at Requested moves

[edit]

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Neopanax colensoi to be moved to Pseudopanax colensoi. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. --Prosperosity (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff

[edit]

When we cite something from Stuff do we put Stuff (website) or Stuff (company)? I've always done the website one but I'm not sure. And to be clear, I'm talking about when the article was written by Stuff itself, not The Press or something. ―Panamitsu (talk) 06:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Website. The company page is for the outfit that owns the—well—company. Schwede66 07:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stuff (website) = Work
Stuff (company) = Publisher Traumnovelle (talk) 07:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Stuff (website) is the work. Omit the publisher, per Template:Cite news – "Omit where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work". Nurg (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance maintaining and updating new zealand boxing pages

[edit]

Hey I uploaded this before but there was an error which is why it was removed by admin, this is why i dont do edits on my phone lol

Hey can someone help me update a couple of these as I just dont have the time to maintain them anymore and they are getting neglected.

Andrei Mikhailovich needs his profile to reflected on the fact that he was declared mandatory challenger by IBF, negotiations were lengthy, a lot of post poned fight, eventually got a fight after 1 year hiatus due to waiting for the elimination fight, and then his world title which ended in him losing

Isaac Peach

Jerome Pampellone

Mea Motu needs to be expanded more recent events, especially her fights in 2024 and her being on TV

David Letele for more his community work

David Higgins (event promoter)

Duco Events especially with David Nyika, T20 Black Clash and Synthony events

Lani Daniels espeically expansion of her being on TV

Uila Mau'u

Floyd Masson

Boxing NZ reflecting on leaving IBA and joining World Boxing

Mose Auimatagi Jnr

Junior Fa retiring in his career, leaving the church, big life change and his last loss

Hemi Ahio

any help would be very much appreciated Bennyaha (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage et AL as a reliable source

[edit]

Heritage et AL ([9][10]) is the official heritage research blog for Auckland Libraries. It features content from historians, librarians and other professional researchers discussing Auckland-related heritage topics, often the most recent discussions on Auckland-related topics. A user has been removing references to Heritage et AL, citing WP:SPS; describing the blog as a "self-published source" that is "a blog written by employees without oversight, which is why it is a blog and not on the official domain".

I don't really believe this is a fair assessment of Heritage et AL or a good interpretation of WP:SPS - most (if not all) of the individuals are subject experts who have elsewhere published content on history, and they don't explicitly state it, but I feel like it'd be extremely surprising if Auckland Libraries let contributors post literally anything without some level of review or oversight.

Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? I'd like to restore the removed Heritage et AL citations to pages where appropriate. --Prosperosity (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw three examples of these removals this morning before seeing this post, but I had a busy morning and didn't take any action. I agree with you that this blog is suitable as a reference, although I'd be reluctant to use it for controversial topics.-Gadfium (talk) 02:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd put this into the same category as The Prow. Definitely a quality blog that can be used for anything but controversial stuff. Schwede66 03:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should have opened this on RSN instead. It is by every definition a self-published source and thus must meet our guidelines for that. If this was properly published by Auckland libraries then it wouldn't be hosted on blogspot it would be on the official domain with their other content. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or, the library is just leveraging a third-party blog hosting service to publish their research. That does not in any way reduce the reliability of the content. If it is being authored by professional researchers associated with Auckland library, then I would consider this a reliable secondary source suitable for use on Wikipedia.
I've seen similar criticism of Christchurch City Library publication website Canterbury Stories. Because these services are being operated by the organisations, WP:SPS should not apply. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is a blog publishing primary original research. It is no different from numerous other pseudo-expert blogs around such as te ara. Someone has every right to remove it or challenfe it. Pretending it is acceptable and allowing its use is irresponsible. Please always remember that library staff are just that, library staff. Most of them would be no different from an average wiki-editor. Another issue with these blogs is they are often brief summaries of a detailed topic and by summarising they give a misleading impression of reality. However, there is a WP guideline somewhere that does allow primary evidence from an acknowledged expert in the field in question. The bar though is set quite high so we should only use top quality real experts with a track record behind them and what they have written should not have been tampered with by library staff. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Roger 8 Roger Would you like to edit the description of Te Ara from “Online encyclopedia devoted to New Zealand” to “pseudo-expert blog”? Quilt Phase (talk) 00:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if Roger would benefit from meeting some of the Te Ara contributors, who are typically top-level academics with an awful lot of fancy letters before and after their names. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please always remember that library staff are just that, library staff. Most of them would be no different from an average wiki-editor
Except that they are employed by and are publishing through a respected organisation with some editorial oversight. By definition, that is not self-publishing.
they are often brief summaries of a detailed topic
This is often the nature of a secondary source. I am not arguing these are perfect sources, but they are certainly good enough for Wikipedia, particularly on non-controversial subjects.
by summarising they give a misleading impression of reality
This is your own personal interpretation. Please consider the possibility that your own impression of reality is actually wrong. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are librarians who do some research with their time. When Auckland Council needs to write a historical report they out-source the job to actual experts. Not to diminish the work they've done - it is the stuff said experts will rely on themselves but it is not the kind of sourcing that is appropriate for Wikipedia. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to the Canterbury Stories that is a site that relies on user-generated content. It does say it goes through a moderation process but given the short-time frame for it I imagine it is just about not allowing people to upload shocking/offensive/obviously false content. In fact that source is much worse than the Auckland library staff blog as it seems just about any-joe can submit things and have them approved. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In case you aren't clear, "it goes through a moderation process" means "it is not a self-published source". David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 03:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It means it is WP:UGC which means it is unreliable for a different reasons. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are only partially correct, and you're continuing to miss the point. Some of the content is contributed by users and may fall under WP:UGC. This is particularly true of the 'Our Stories' collection. However, there is also content in other collections from sources such as archives and digitised publications. For example, the CCC librarians have done an excellent job researching the history of street names in Christchurch, which is a very valuable and reliable secondary source for Wikipedia editors.
The domain name on which content is published should not automatically exclude it from being considered a useful source. You need to look more carefully at each source and who is authoring the work. For another example, if I source a scanned book uploaded to Internet Archive, the citation does not become invalid simply because it is hosted on a website that also hosts user-generated or self-published content.
Carte blanche removal of links to specific websites without carefully checking and understanding each source linked shows a misunderstanding of the intention of the rules we have around sources. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 03:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The citation in that case is still the book itself. Creating a different domain for different content is different to going to Blogspot for it. Auckland Libraries is not publishing this source in any form. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The website certainly seems to be affiliated with Auckland libraries. Would it ease your mind if we reached out to check that it is one of their official publications? David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you want me to ask Auckland Libraries about their specific vetting policy for how content gets on Heritage et AL? Based on the people who submit pieces, everyone I can see is a GLAM professional and/or a published historian.
WP:UGC clearly doesn't apply here. These posts aren't iTunes reviews or fansites - there's no way for content to be uploaded without passing through Auckland Libraries (or for Canterbury Stories, Canterbury Libraries). Prosperosity (talk) 04:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB is also checked by moderators, it is still considered a completely unreliable source due to being user generated without proper fact-checking for claims. Canterbury Stories shouldn't be relied on at all if it is user submitted content. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me who these users are who are generating content? Prosperosity (talk) 05:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For example, the CCC librarians have done an excellent job researching the history of street names in Christchurch, which is a very valuable and reliable secondary source for Wikipedia editors. This is what I mean about pseudo-experts. The Christchurch street names list is interesting and at times useful for supplying sources but that is all. Good on the people creating the list but they are no different from a reasonably good wiki-editor. If I wanted to use detail about a street name from that list I would look at the source the librarian used and noted on the list, and use that source as my RSS for WP. (Note - often the sources used by the librarian are primary - such as letters in old newspapers, making what the libraian puts into their list primary again). The list created by the librarian is a primary source, it contains isolated sentences and disconnected detail, snippits from a source the librarian found. That is not what a professional expert in the field would do. How you can claim otherwise is astonishing. 'They are checked', you claim - what is checked and by whom? Checking for typos by another staff member doesn't count. Checking means peer reviewing by an expert or by a professional publisher that would have the necessary reviewing skills. I am constantly amazed at how most NZ editors genuinely think that what they put into wikipedia is correct if it is sourced with one of these cheap online one-size-fits-all sources from CCC, te papa, or a govt department. It's as if people don't think they have to read a proper source because it takes time, so why read a seventeen page chapter in a CUP book by a geography professor (a quality secondary source), when you can read a two line summary of what a local librarian thinks that geography professor is saying (a mediocre primary source). Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Note - often the sources used by the librarian are primary - such as letters in old newspapers, making what the libraian puts into their list primary again). this isn't remotely how sources work. By definition, secondary sources regularly base their work off of primary sources. Either way though, the sources seem totally fine for use in my view - provided they're not being used for super controversial stuff, like what Schwede mentioned above. Turnagra (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your commment Note - often the sources used by the librarian are primary - such as letters in old newspapers, making what the libraian puts into their list primary again makes it extremely clear you do not understand how primary/secondary/tertiary sources work. Please go read and understand the meaning of these terms before weighing in further. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, yes of course I know what secondary sources are. What I wrote was clumsy and not what I meant so please ignore that sentence. Second, what do you mean, primary sources are fine if the subject is not contraversial? That only applies for statements of patently obvious facts (eg the sky is blue) which don't need the source anyway. Anything else has different opinions and must have a source. If there is no RSS then what is written should make it clear what the statement is based on. (Not - 9% of NZers are Muslim - but according to the census 9% are Muslim) (Or more worrying is the way anything in a newspaper is treated as fact when often the journalist just reports what someone says, which is primary). the relevance of this discussion is the quality of wiki editing which is often low, careless or reckless. Understanding what sources are secondary and what are primary is just part of the problem. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not make the claim that primary sources are acceptable. I am asserting that the library sources you incorrectly believe are somehow primary are in fact secondary. Protip: if it has a bibliography (thats a list of citations or sources in case you are unclear, such as this article has), it is almost certainly not a primary source. The fact you are still arguing that these sources are primary, again, shows you definitely do not understand the difference between “primary” and “secondary”. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have had time to cherry pick. That source of yours is at the top end of these numerous library sources but it is still self published (Akl libraries isn't a proper publisher) and without an author. On the page it links to its blog and facebook pages. If you want to use it, it is probably safe but you'd be safer looking at the RSS's it uses and use them (preferably not the te Papa one). We don't even know who wrote that article or what, if any, agenda they work to. How truly independent is Auckland Libraries? Your source is comparable to, but IMO worse than, a PhD thesis "published" online by a university. You could also give your opinion on the many pages from Christchurch libraries, such as the list of street names. That is less polished and is more obviously someone's project. Or, the other pages from the Chc library that are slanted towards promoting Maori culture. Again, not independent, self published by Chc libraries/CCC, without a personal author, and often using low grade sources if a list of sources is given. All these library and museum sources are useful and sometimes all we have to work with, but they are still not proper independent reliable secondary sources and so should be used with care. Recently, there was some editing around the Treaty that used one of these less than ideal (te ara/tertiary) sources with a short page signed by Claudia Orange.here. That can be used because we know the author who is a subject expert, see wp:RSSELF. Te ara is an encyclopedia, and at best its articles are tertiary, but not a proper RSS WP:RSPRIMARY so the Orange article could be used as a teriary source but I think better to use it as a primary written by an expert. Whatever, there is an over-reliance on primary and sometimes tertiary sources masquarading as independent reliable secondary sources. IMO that should be discouraged, which you and others are not doing. The problem isn't confined to NZ articles BTW. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have had time to cherry pick
I literally opened the blog home page, and that was the second or third most recent post. I would hardly call this cherry picking.
It clearly states, in bold lettering, Author: Katryn Baker, along with a multi-paragraph bio of her academic credentials. Please actually read and comprehend before criticising.
Akl libraries isn't a proper publisher
As was pointed out in the OP, this blog is listed as a publication in the National Library. What in your criteria makes something a “proper publisher”?
Your source is comparable to, but IMO worse than, a PhD thesis "published" online by a university. A PhD thesis is, by definition, a peer-reviewed piece of novel academic research. They are a perfect example of a reliable secondary source.
Te ara is an encyclopedia, and at best its articles are tertiary
This not evenly remotely the case. Te Ara hosts a number of excellent reliable secondary sources including the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. It also includes secondary source publications and summaries by subject-matter experts in the field. A subject matter expert summarising facts from their knowledge of primary and occasionally secondary sources is not a primary source. You again prove you do not understand the meaning of the terms. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quoted from the bottom of your so-called RSS: "You can read the other three blogs written by Katryn on the Auckland History Initiative website:" ... "Katryn completed her Bachelor of Arts in Art History and History at the University of Auckland in 2023 and is currently undertaking her Master of Arts in Art History. Growing up in Rotorua, Katryn was always fascinated with how lively and dynamic Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland was, and this fascination continued throughout her studies here in the city." So, you think a blog from a person with a BA in history last year that is a proper independent reliable secondary source"? Yet again - these websites are often useful and interesting but they are not proper RSS's and must be handled with care. A wiki-editor would be better to use the sources supplied by the blog, but that requires time and effort and a basic knowledge of the topic. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, you think a blog from a person with a BA in history last year that is a proper independent reliable secondary source?
Yes, I consider a well-referenced essay written by a credentialed academic historian, published through a respected library, working with the oversight of two senior academics on the subject to be a reliable secondary source for the purposes of editing Wikipedia. In fact I’m quite impressed by that “blog post”. There is plenty there that could be used to create decent biographical articles on these woman artists.
A wiki-editor would be better to use the sources supplied by the blog And what if those sources are primary, as some of those are? They would absolutely not be suitable to use on Wikipedia in their raw form. The interpretation of the meaning of those sources by this subject matter expert is critical to their usefulness. This is what makes it a secondary source. Again, you do not seem to understand primary and secondary sources. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is you who does not seem to understand that secondary sources come in all shapes and sizes of differing quality. Quite frankly I am astounded you consider a normal public library with help from a heritage trust that by its own definition produces blogs and personal essays by people it considers suitable, to be the type of secondary source required by wikipedia. And you also consider a newly qualified batchlor of arts graduate as meeting the level of academic ability to be accepted as an expert in a particular field. Well, that means a good number of wikipedia editors don't need to add sources because they have batchelor degrees too, so their additions can be accepted at face value. This understanding of yours really should be looked at by other non-nz editors for comment. If you represent the wider NZ wiki-community then we have a problem. No, I obviously do not mean we should use any primary sources used by the library bloggers. There are usually plently of secondary sources they use. If we do use the primary sources we have to make it clear we are using primary sources, which is a skill in itself, one that is often not mastered by the average wiki-editor. I have never said all these library and museum and council sources should not be used, but if used they must be used cautiously which usually does not happen. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is you who does not seem to understand that secondary sources come in all shapes and sizes of differing quality
Actually that is exactly the point I have been trying to make this entire time. Some of those “shapes and sizes” can be reputable library research sources like Heritage et AL.
And you also consider a newly qualified batchlor of arts graduate as meeting the level of academic ability to be accepted as an expert in a particular field.
I repeat again: a well-referenced essay written by a credentialed academic historian, published through a respected library, working with the oversight of two senior academics on the subject to be a reliable secondary source for the purposes of editing Wikipedia.
Well, that means a good number of wikipedia editors don't need to add sources because they have batchelor degrees too, so their additions can be accepted at face value This is such a woeful interpretation of what I have said that I think you are now being deliberately difficult. We cannot just blindly trust what anyone writes on the internet. But if they are qualified, write well, use and understand sources, and publish through a respected institution like a major public library with oversight of experts then of course it is a reliable secondary source.
I think the true issue is that these reliable sources often say things you personally disagree with, particularly around Māori-dom, and you have therefore incorrectly dismissed them as non-credible. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 00:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to view this discussion from a different angle. It may be that the difference is simply the level at which we consider a secondary source to be acceptable for use in WP, and that my level is higher than yours. I therefore consider some of these library sources as not reaching the level I regard as truly secondary (not much better than a more traditional self-published blog), so what is written IMO remains as primary. You appear to have the bar lower down, whereby anything written that goes through any sort of third party first automatically becomes secondary and is therefore acceptable. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Roger 8 Roger: Could you elaborate on what you specifically feel is important for a secondary source to have? These are some major factors as I understand it, and from reading your comments in this thread:
  • The resource synthesises primary and secondary information, providing context, insight, analysis and/or commentary.
  • The publisher of the resource is reputable, especially within the scope of the work's subject.
  • The resource goes through a process of review, checked by subject experts.
  • The researcher considers and synthesises a variety of opinions and positions.
Is there anything else I'm missing? Prosperosity (talk) 03:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have the bar lower down, whereby anything written that goes through any sort of third party first automatically becomes secondary and is therefore acceptable.
No, no no. Please read WP:SECONDARY. Secondary refers to the source synthesising or interpreting thoughts and ideas from material in primary sources. That is exactly what is happening in these sources (for the most part).
I think you're getting multiple concepts confused here. A secondary source: does not need to be written by a subject-matter expert; does not need to be published in a reputable outlet; and does not need to be peer-reviewed. Those are things that contribute to the reliability of the source, not whether it is primary or secondary. They are entirely different qualities. Ideally, we want both.
To back up a bit to the original question:
  • These library sources are certainly mostly secondary. They are typically a person looking existing primary and secondary sources and synthesising or summarising. They are not, as you put it, a blog publishing primary original research. You are just wrong on that.
  • For us to use a source on Wikipedia, it must be published. That does not mean exclusively in a dusty leather-bound tome. The Wikipedia definition we must use per WP:PUBLISHED is made available to the public in some form. Content can be published to the internet. It can be published to blogging platforms like blogspot.
    • Aside: To be clear this means the unpublished statements of a person, even a subject-matter expert, cannot be used as a source on Wikipedia, contrary to your earlier ludicrous extension of my position that concluded that means a good number of wikipedia editors don't need to add sources because they have batchelor degrees too, so their additions can be accepted at face value. No.
  • Regardless of how something is published, determining WP:RELIABILITY is a fiddly and subjective process. We must look at the platform where it is published, but we also have to look at the context, how old the publication is, the track-record of the scholar or publication, and whether it has been used by others elsewhere, among other things. When I look at these library sources, I see reputable institutions staffed by knowledgeable people with excellent use of sources writing out about niche local topics. In most cases, these are perfectly acceptable for use on Wikipedia. In the case of Heritage et AL, they chose to publish on blogspot (I suspect for cost-saving or historical reasons) but where the content is good we should use it, and should not dismiss it out-of-hand.
  • Particularly in the case of Te Ara, contributors are top-level academics who are outright experts in their respective fields. Your description of Te Ara as a pseudo-expert blog is outrageous hubris and ignorance on your part. This glib comment really bothered me because I hugely respect their mahi. If you're going to voice your opinion on something, at least briefly look into the facts beforehand.
Like Prosperosity I also would really like to hear what you consider when determining if something is reliable or not. I suspect your standards you allude to are much much higher than is necessary on Wikipedia, or are applied selectively to content when you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 05:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A well structured mini-essay on secondary sources but it's based on the false assumption that I don't know that or don't agree with that. Seeing as you appear to be so energised I might have to accept that I am in some way at fault. The best error I can think of is that I leave out words because they are obvious when in fact they are not obvious. Your assumption I don't know what a secondary source is, being one such example. I do often use RSS which is closer to what I mean, and sometimes also add in the word 'independent' which is closer still - and in line with what WP wants. However, I sometimes take shortcuts and just use 'secondary', with the reliability and independent parts left out (secondary is easier to type than RSS btw). But, perhaps I should spell it out in full. I might also be guilty of not labouring the point that I often mean reliability when using the term secondary - in my mind it is all part of the same thing - RSS. Now, to avoid doubt - my reference to library sources is shorthand for all similar bodies, museums, govt depts, national associations etc. There is a breadth of quality and often some are fine to use. I am concerned with many that are not because they might not be reliable, independent. Now, a big problem with many of these sources is their independence. They are often influenced by a higher body making them not truly independent. The classic example is all the promotion of all things Maori which is often done because the law says it should be done - that means it isn't properly independent which in turn means what that source says could be unreliable - it does not reflect reality. An easy accusationn to make of the CPChina but less easy when directed at the NZ govt, despite the underlying problem being the same. It has nothing to do with my views on Maori whatsoever, despite what you and others imply. The accusation of just don't like it is better thrown at those who distort reality because they don't like the reality that currently exists. That means, for example, they use foreign words instead of established English words and make out it is natural to do that and it's not forced on them. My concern in such cases therefore is that what is expressed is often not independent, hence questioning its use as a source. The subject is complicated and not always clear cut but the first step to finding an acceptable way of dealing with it is to acknowledge the patently obvious that all things Maori is being positively and at times unnaturally promoted. Back to the problem with these library type sources. They are often a brief summary of a complex topic. Even if written by an expert a lot of detail is missing and that can easily lead to ambiguity and half truths. If an expert writes a two paragraph page for the auckland public library then editors should read the articles or books that expert has written to put the library source in context, but that rarely happens. To end, my earlier mention of te ara should have been te papa but by the time I'd realised the error others had commented so I couldn't change it. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Roger, for clarifying. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 09:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion went on a few tangents, and while Traumnovelle/Roger 8 Roger object to Heritage et Al's use, it does not seem justifiable to cite WP:SPS to remove content from this source (there is no evidence that this is self-published content). Because of this, I feel that it's quite reasonable to restore the removed citations. --Prosperosity (talk) 04:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Late to this discussion, but I agree. When I present to GLAM instutitutions on how they can engage with Wikipedia, I always stress the value of an institutional blog as a publishing tool. The platform doesn't matter; at Whanganui Regional Museum we were using a free WordPress account. As long as the blog is obviously under the institutional banner, has some expectation of oversight (in that you can't just publish any random thing, as the institution's reputation is on the line), is written by a subject expert, has a clear publication date, and has references, it's a perfectly reliable source. For example, This posting by a PhD candidate on Dove-Myer Robinson seems to fit the bill. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 01:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Name suppression

[edit]

Kia ora, I have added a section to Gag order#New Zealand about our name suppression laws. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, even though IANAL, that is a very thorough and clear explanation of the situation in New Zealand, with plenty of citations. Keep up the good work. Kiwipete (talk) 08:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also not a lawyer, hence why I mentioned it here in case anyone is interested to check my work (the article is outside WPNZ and won’t show up in alerts etc).
Thanks for your kind comment! David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you as well! I had been hoping to get to that one day. It might even be worth splitting out eventually, given how much anomalous our name suppression laws are. — HTGS (talk) 03:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! I had the same thought. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 04:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Archive hack

[edit]

Overnight, the Internet Archive was hacked and 31 million email addresses were compromised. Given that a lot of use the Internet Archive for archiving references, we need to be vigilant and safeguard our accounts. The website haveibeenpwned allows us to check whether our email accounts have been compromised. Is there a way for Wikipedia to alert users? Andykatib (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boethius65

[edit]

@Koro Neil: has posted a message at User:Boethius65 advising the editor died about two years ago. I am aware of a connection between Koro Neil and Boethius, and I have seen an obituary in the NZ Herald for the name given, so I am convinced the advice is genuine. Condolences can be left at User talk:Boethius65.-Gadfium (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that this is correct. Daveosaurus (talk) 02:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aotearoa New Zealand Wikimedia virtual meetup - 13 October 12 noon - 2pm

[edit]

This is a reminder that the next Aotearoa New Zealand online meet up is tomorrow, Sunday 13 October from 12:00 noon NZST. The page including the meeting link is here: Wikipedia:Meetup/Aotearoa New Zealand Online/54 Ambrosia10 (talk) 06:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hatupatu's Rock

[edit]

Does anyone have a free photo of Hatupatu's rock at Ātiamuri (next to SH1) that they'd be willing to upload to Commons? Or know of one already on there? I'm expanding his Wiki article and it would really benefit from a picture. Te Ara has a photo here, but I'm not sure whether its license is compatible with commons. Furius (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-commercial licenses are not appropriate for Commons. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a photo in Te Papa's collections which you can probably use (1960, no known copyright restrictions - which may mean public domain (I'm not sure on this point)). Found using the Creative Commons Search Portal.
I also found a couple of images using DigitalNZ, but they weren't openly licensed. In addition, there were quite a few using Google's image search for "Hatupatu’s rock", but copyright information was non-existent or unclear. David Nind (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could've been shared as CC-zero, but you would need to have that confirmed before uploading to Commons. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 America's Cup

[edit]

I've nominated the 2024 America's Cup for main page exposure via In the News (ITN). It's one of those events where ITN notability is agreed; all that needs to happen is for the article to be presentable. It does need some TLC. I hope that somebody here has time and more enthusiasm for sailing than I have. Schwede66 01:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wellington meetup - Saturday 26 October - 10:00am

[edit]

The next in-person meetup for Wikimedians in Wellington is this coming Saturday. Wikimedians in the region are invited to come along and join us in the cafe at the National Library for a catchup, and to meet new editors. Here is a link to the Wellington meetups page, where you can click through to the event page for 26 October. Hope to see some of you there._Marshelec (talk) 03:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Macrons

[edit]

Our favourite Wikipedia editor is back again to his hobby, removing macrons. So I've decided to make a script to fix them if anyone is interested in using it. Sometimes it makes mistakes (such as clbuttic errors, changing file names, quotes, etc) so you have to pay attention to what it does. In the future I'll probably reduce the amount of manual intervention that is required. ―Panamitsu (talk) 05:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if a script is the best choice here given the potential to change proper nouns and quotes. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It may be better to search for changes and then if a vandal is found to just roll back their edits. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes problem is an easy fix and I will do that in the future. As for proper nouns, you just have to make sure the tool did the right thing. Just like when using every other tool. ―Panamitsu (talk) 06:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've left them a "please don't make test edits" note. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that it'd make a difference. This person has been doing it for a long time and uses new IP addresses for every edit and knows quite a bit about Wikipedia to find these articles that no New Zealander is going to have on their watchlist. ―Panamitsu (talk) 07:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It means that they can't say they weren't warned - next time they do it there's nothing stopping an admin from blocking them. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difficulty with this one is that they never make edits from the same IP address twice, so blocking is useless. It's a one-off edit from a one-off IP to remove a macron and then repeat with a new IP. Turnagra (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon we should have a bot that produces lists of articles and other main page items (e. g. templates) where macrons got removed. That’ll find such obscure vandalism on Mexican articles. If a few editors watchlist the bot's output, we’ll stay on top of things. Schwede66 17:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to help out keeping an eye on that, sounds like a good idea. Turnagra (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a better solution. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good thinking. I've never done anything like creating wiki bots, but I'd be keen to contribute code to such a thing. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have started writing a bot to monitor the changelog for suspicious macron removals. Early experiments are promising, I'll keep you updated. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 07:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cloventt: Nice work. I've also started working on a bot but have a different approach. Instead of monitoring the recent changes for macron removals, mine finds links without macrons. (The IP probably finds the pages that none of us have on their watchlist by using the "what links here" feature).
Because our approaches differ, I'll outline the differences:
  • Yours monitors recent edits (I assume), but mine finds macrons that have been missing for as long as Wikipedia has existed
  • My bot falsely picks up the cases where macrons are supposed to be omitted (e.g. quotes). We would have to manually 'blacklist' these (not fun)
  • My bot picks up on good faith additions of words/names without macrons
  • My bot sometimes lists links to non-NZ articles that do not have the macron (e.g. Tūī -> tui disambiguation)
I've created a list here as a proof of concept, using the populated places listed at WP:TOHUTO. In the future I will list every WPNZ article title containing a macron. ―Panamitsu (talk) 09:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
shouldn't it be WP:TOHUTŌ? slightly unserious Daveosaurus (talk) 10:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Good thinking! Let's do both. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this is a good start for sure! something else it'd be good to track would be piped links to remove macrons, as I've noticed this a lot (eg. [[Kākāpō|Kakapo]]), as I've noticed that a fair bit in relation to these edits as an attempt to hide them on the "what links here" lists. There are some tools which let you search for such strings, but it may be difficult to do in a more automated way. Turnagra (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. First version is now running and writing to pages under User:MacronMonitor. This is still in early stages and may not be very reliable for a while.
There are two pages it populate. The general alerts are for any edit where the number of macrons after the edit is smaller than before the edit. This gives a lot of false positives on foreign articles, and is also triggered by perfectly innocuous edits where references have been condensed together, etc. But it should help in the general case.
The other Link Alerts page checks for the behaviour you describe. It identifies edits containing links to pages that have macrons in the page name, but where the linkpipe does not contain any macrons. This also picks up some false positives but far fewer than the other page.
I've written the bot to be extensible with other dodgy behaviours, so I am planning to extend it to also detect Māori words that are misspelled by missing macrons. The Tohutō list of place names Panamitsu gave above is a good start but there are others like bird names and general words that we can identify too. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a way to eliminate a large number of the false positives for the link alerts is to check if the article linked is part of WPNZ. ―Panamitsu (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the bot may find a number of articles that should be part of WPNZ, too. Oronsay (talk) 00:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It already worked! I was pretty easily able to spot this apparently malicious edit. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 07:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haha nice work ―Panamitsu (talk) 07:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And relevant to your comment above, this article is not part of WPNZ. I suspect we have probably been missing a lot of these such edits if they are being done tactically on pages not under WPNZ. Therefore, there is a good reason to throw the net wide with this tool. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 07:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't say it clearly. I meant the link in the article. So for this example, Māngere is the link that is part of WPNZ, not Tonga women's national under-20 football team. ―Panamitsu (talk) 07:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yeah I see. That could be an extension to the logic, but I want to minimise the number of pages I check. If false positives continue to be a problem I'll look into it further.
I've done a quick check and all of these IP edits seem to be from addresses registered in Perth, Australia by the way. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 07:41, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By "I check" do you mean your bot? You don't need to check another page to check if a link is part of WPNZ. Get a list of WPNZ articles using this query once per day or something and then check if link is part of that list. ―Panamitsu (talk) 07:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good thinking! David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 08:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Panamitsu how did you generate that petscan query? It needs some tweaking but I don't want to learn the meanings of every parameter. I think there is a way to share the populated petscan form page for a query David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just remove the "&format=json" and you'll get the form. Here it is. What needs tweaking? ―Panamitsu (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the IP locations, this is not always the case. For example, this edit seems to have been done in Canada. ―Panamitsu (talk) 07:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This in Christchurch, this in the United States, etc. ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Schwede66, would you like to protect some more navbox templates? They are still being vandalised. ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I shall go through the city templates as well. Schwede66 08:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Hm, I had previously protected some templates; not sure why some had been left unprotected. And I did spot vandalism on the Tauranga and Upper Hutt templates. Schwede66 09:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just deployed a new version of the bot. In addition to previous functionality it incorporates changes suggested by Panamitsu to reduce the false positive rate, as well as detect any misspelled te re Māori word anywyhere on Wikipedia. The low false positive rate means alerts have been consolidated to one page on User:MacronMonitor/Alerts. If you have feedback or feature requests please use the bot's talk page. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How often does it run? Just went to have a look and saw it was empty, so I'm assuming it hasn't fully gotten up and running yet? Turnagra (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just wiped the page. It runs constantly, typically it updates the page within 5 seconds of a dodgy edit being made. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 22:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I see it's working now. It does seem to be flagging way more than perhaps intended though, I had a look at the first few edits and none of them involved the word in question being changed at all that I could see. Turnagra (talk) 08:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know anything about this editor but I think calling himher a vandal is not quite right. Vandalism is mindless intentional damage. From seeing a few examples here this person might well have reasoned views that simply differ from yours just like in any other dispute. Changing IPs is not the right approach but that isn't vandalism. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a track record of solely removing macrons and taking a range of steps to try and conceal their actions. It's vandalism, pure and simple. We've got a clear community consensus that macrons are used in NZ English and that we should use them where they reflect the correct spelling, and an editor not liking that consensus doesn't give them authority to ignore it. Turnagra (talk) 05:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is clear: omitting macrons from Māori words and place names is misspelling. Deliberately misspelling words is vandalism. I think there is nothing to be gained by further argument on this point. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To me ignoring/disagreeing with consensus alone is not vandalism, but could better be described as being disruptive. to me vandalism is such things as adding swear words or mindless removal of sections. Remember, consensus does not make something correct, it makes it a consensus. I haven't been following this person but from what you all say here heshe is only removing macrons without giving a reason. That would better fit as disruptive I think. Loook, let me try yet again ... I generally agree with your macron consensus. What I don't agree with is the reasoning that has led to reaching that consensus. You all appear to be thinking the debate is between thge pro- and anti- Maori groups. That migfht be thge approach of many but not of me or some editors who I have to say look more deeply into the issue. Terms like 'the correct spelling' are misleading. The bird, in English, is correctly spelt Tui and has been for 200 years. Its use as Tui in sources for 200 years has established its correct spelling. In te reo it is spelt Tūī, and has been since te reo received its current alphabet. In recent years, NZ English has begun using the Maori word instead of the English word. That makes the macron word correct when writing NZ English but it is not the correct English spelling, NZE or any version of English. It can be likened to UK English suddenly starting to write the Bavarian city as Munchen (with an umlaut) instead of the established English word Munich. The whole macron debate is clouded in confusion for other reasons too, not helped by NZGB, but whatever it is, it is not a pro- and anti- Maori problem: treating it as such just makes those who view it that way frustatingly creating more of a problem than the one that already exists. It is interesting to view similar debates elsewhere where consensus reasoning and hence consensus conclusio/approach differs from the Maori-English approach, such as Welsh-English. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"In recent years, NZ English has begun using the Maori word instead of the English word." Rather, in recent years some publications have begun writing English words (of Māori-language origin) with macrons. It is just a matter of writing style – and the preferences of various people/publications for one style over another. For comparison, many people prefer the style "café" (for the English word of French-language origin), while I prefer the style "cafe" in my personal writing. It is just different English writing styles. Nurg (talk) 03:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this sub-discussion is achieving nothing, and is offtopic, I suggest that we end it before any more of our time is wasted. ―Panamitsu (talk) 05:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cloventt: Are you interested in creating a new version of your bot that detects the addition of American spellings in New Zealand articles? If not, I could modify it myself if you provide me the source code. ―Panamitsu (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Macrons (Oct 24)

[edit]

(See previous sub section, and for the benefit of Panamitsu and others)

To continue...

Yes Nurg. The problem IMO with that reasoning is that there are three steps: use of the foreign word, followed by alteration to fit better into English, third, full almalgamation. There are no clear timelines. IMO the cafe/café example is switching between a foreign word and an almalgamated English word, not one of alternative versions of an almalgamated English word. Use of diacritics in fully assimilated English words is possible but the reasons are specicific and are not the reasons why macrons are used in NZE. For example, naive/naïve clarifies what could otherwise be a confusing pronunciation. The need for such clarification does not exist with m#acrons in Moari words used in English. However, I take your point about a prefered style of an English word. The reason I disagree and think macronised words are Maori words not English words is that problems arise by treating them as assimilated English words that do not arise when treating them as unassimilated Maori words. Those problems do not arise in such examples as naive/naïve and cafe/café where the difference is conseuentially irrelevant even though it still existd. One such reason for that lack of relevance is there is no law that demands the use of naïve unlike with all the macron Maori words. About a prefered style: it could easily be viewed as a preference of using an English word or a foreign word, rather than two versions of an English word. That would also fit better with other similare words used in English. Prefered versions of words in English dialects relate to choice of words rather than their spelling. The spellling is either right or wrong in any given dialect. Eg, color/colour is not a preference of style, it is right or wrong. (An example of style, not right/wrong is wee/little in NZE.) Any preference is about whether to use the UK or US version of English, not the spelling itself. With macrons the preference is about the spelling, not any version of English, which makes saying it is the NZE dialect wrong. There is nothing to say the correct spelling in NZE is Tūī instead of Tui, unlike with color being the correct US English word. Even with NZGB, these macronised words are only the official spellings that people are free to ignore if they want to, unless you are an official person where you are forced to macronise. Back to your point, foreign words do over time assimiate to become English words. IMO it is far too soon to say that has happened with all these foreign Maori words now being used in NZE. IMO, watch the current NZ govt that is unwinding many of the pro-maori changes - forced use of macrons will be on the list of changes to be undone but it is likely somewhere towards the bottom of that list. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Roger, this is the exact opposite of ending the discussion. No amount of monologuing is going to convince me that your views align with reality, just as no amount of monologuing from me is going to convince you that people who use macrons aren't part of a widespread conspiracy. So please, drop it. Turnagra (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Always fun to see a (+5,716) in the noticeboard revision history. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's time to drop the stick. Nobody is being "forced" to use macrons - all they need to do is sit back and let other people fix their spelling mistakes.
It's also possibly time to edit the heading of this section - whatever happened to "comment on content, not the contributor"? Daveosaurus (talk) 10:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
commenting on content not the contributor applies to content disputes, this relates more to policy. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Auckland Meetup: 2 November at 10:00AM

[edit]
Samoa House

A reminder that we have our next Auckland meet-up on 2 November at 10:00AM, at Samoa House on Karangahape Road/Beresford Square. Additional details can be found on the meet-up page here: Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland 29 --Prosperosity (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christchurch Meetup: 3 November, 2pm, Tūranga

[edit]

And we also have a monthly meetup, in Foundation Cafe, Tūranga Central Library, Christchurch, from 2:00–4:00 PM. All welcome, especially Christchurch editors who haven't come along yet. The event page is Wikipedia:Meetup/Christchurch/33. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 01:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of OneRoof

[edit]

There is a discussion on WP:RS/N as to the reliability of OneRoof. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Auckland Museum WiR

[edit]

Kia ora everyone! I am Winnieswikiworld the Wikimedian in Residence at Auckland Museum. I am working on a few projects and would like to welcome collaboration from our New Zealand Wikipedia community. Projects:

Please get in touch via talk page if you are interested! —Winnieswikiworld (talk • contribs) 02:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're employed by Auckland Museum you shouldn't be making edits such as: [11] which promote the museum and it's exhibitions. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me, I see no CoI and the contributions are extremely productive.
I’m excited to see direct collaboration by institutions like Auckland Library contributing to Wikipedia. You should be too. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zero concern from my end about that particular edit. Schwede66 19:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further to add: the Wikipedian in residence programme is designed:
to facilitate Wikipedia entries related to that institution's mission, encourage and assist it to release material under open licenses, and to develop the relationship between the host institution and the Wikimedia community
The entire point of the programme is for the institution to engage more with Wikipedia, and improve our encyclopaedia using knowledge and material that the institution holds. I don't understand how you can think they should be expected to not mention the institution on Wikipedia. That would seem to utterly defeat the purpose of the programme. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between mentioning an employer and adding unsourced information about how their employer is hosting an active exhibition. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you reverted the thing I assume you are objecting to. The statement you reverted as "Not verifiable and a COI" was sourced to a blog by an apparently highly credentialed Fine Art academic. It is not a CoI or unverifiable, so I have restored it. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The references provided were from 2017 and 1958. They obviously can't verify something in the future. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we are in parallel timelines but the reference I am looking at right now, that was used by the author in the original edit and extensively discusses the exhibition in question, is dated 30 August 2024. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[12] in this version it was sourced to a website dated to 2017 and a source from 1967. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you had opened the link in the source, you'd have seen that the date on the article is 30 August 2024. The editor made a simple mistake when they created the cite web template and put in 2017. It helps to attempt to read the sources before you criticise them. This way, we can do productive things like spot the mistake and fix it for them, rather than deleting useful contributions. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have left it regardless due to the COI. Mentioning exhibitions that have no secondary coverage in a published source is not within the purview of an Encyclopaedia. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no CoI and have put it back in. Therefore there is no longer a CoI issue and it can stay.
The source is published, please familiarise yourself with the Wikipedia definition of WP:PUBLISHED. It is also authored by a subject matter expert which overrides any concerns about it being self-published. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The requirement for SPS is clear: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.
It is obviously not intended to be used for their promotion of an exhibition of an institution they have a relation with. It isn't an appropriate usage of an SPS and I'd encourage you to self-revert. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source author doesn't appear to have a relationship with the museum that I can find (in fact they appear to live in Australia) which makes it an independent source. Combined with the author being a subject-matter expert, it is therefore a reliable, independent, secondary source.
I will not be self-reverting, everything that has been done here by the original editor is entirely appropriate. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Promoting an exhibition of your employer is a complete violation of COI and you should not encourage the user to continue with that. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, on this particular edit, there is no CoI because I have now made the edit myself. CoI editing can be perfectly acceptable as long as there is good oversight of the edits made, which has happened in this case.
By my estimation mentioning the exhibition in the article is a good thing as it helps to establish the notability of the artist. Overall the article has been greatly improved by the contributions of this editor. Take a step back and see the forest for the trees.
We're here to make the wiki better, not bite the newcomers or nitpick. Particularly when their being here represents an effort by an institution with excellent resources to assist us in improving the wiki. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And that is accomplished with encyclopaedic writing by stating 'X's work has featured in many exhibitions' or 'X's work has been featured by X museum' not '[place] has an exhibition in [current year] of X'. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The content in question looks fine to me - and if I'm being honest, I take more of an issue with the level of hostility that you've immediately launched at a user when they've been introducing themselves to the WikiProject. That doesn't really seem like the sort of approach that leads to a productive environment and I'm saddened to see it here. Turnagra (talk) 07:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Don't bite the hand that feeds you. ―Panamitsu (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Winnieswikiworld if you want to mention exhibitions or other things the library has done in other places, I'm happy to add that for you to avoid any further spurious accusations of improper CoI editing. Just get in touch on my talk page. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Tam

[edit]

Hi there, I am working on Draft:Harry Tam. I just wanted some advice regarding the use of three sources: two E-Tangata interviews dated 25 July 2021 and 1 August 2021. Another source is a page from the H2R advocacy group listing Tam as a co-director. Would these three sources meet Wikipedia's threshold for reliability? Wanted to check before I add them in. Andykatib (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are usually only good for ABOUTSELF stuff as they are just the words of the subject. The H2R website isn't a reliable source but if you're using it to state something like 'Tam is the co-director of H2R' it will probably be fine and many BLPs do the same. This independent source can be used alongside it: [13] with the h2r site just specifying the co-director part. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Traumnovelle:, thanks so much for your advice on the sources. Will limit the use of the H2R source and corroborate it with other sources like the Newshub one which you shared. Cheers. Andykatib (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aotearoa New Zealand virtual Wiki meetup Sunday

[edit]

Reminder: Tomorrow Sunday the 10th of November at 12 noon the Aotearoa New Zealand Wiki meet up is happening virtually. The agenda and the jitsi link can be found here Wikipedia:Meetup/Aotearoa_New_Zealand_Online/55 Hope to see you there! Ambrosia10 (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_Zealand_Wikipedians%27_notice_board&oldid=1256232125"