Talk:Christchurch

Suburb in wrong city

In the Outer Suburbs is listed Highfield but when I click on the article I end up in a suburb of Timaru. Google maps also put Highfield in Timaru. DOPmanNZ (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

That refers to a previously proposed subdivision that hasn’t happened yet. As it’s a name given to it by developers rather than the area being known as such, I suggest we should delete the entry for now. Schwede66 17:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of Kaiapoi in lead

I think the inclusion of Kaiapoi's history in the lead is undue, it's not located within Christchurch and has no real impact on the city itself. Inclusion in the general history should also not be included unless a link between the early Maori Kaiapoi settlement and the early European Christchurch settlement can be established, it's certainly possible and likely that trade occurred between the two. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I disagree... Kaiapoi and the others mentioned in the lede are major "satellite towns" of Christchurch. There was a pā there and they had a track that leads down to another settlement in modern-day Christchruch. (That gives context on why Māori later settled in Christchurch) Alexeyevitch^(talk) 03:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I meant the history of Kaiapoi.

>That gives context on why Māori later settled in Christchurch

And is there evidence of this in a reliable source? That'd qualify for inclusion into the history section but I fail to see why the lede for the article on Christchurch should mention the history of another town. Auckland's lead doesn't mention the pas at One Tree Hill or Mangere Mountain nor the early conflict that lead to Ngati Whatua Orakei taking control of the Auckland area, even their donation of land to found the city isn't mentioned. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Auckland's lede is irrelevant to Christchurch's... Kaiapoi's Māori history is relevant to Christchurch history - I've said my reasoning before. Keep it in the lede. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 04:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

There needs to be evidence of Maori migration from Kaiapoi moving into Christchurch into the article, the relevance is not established in the article currently. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Here is one reference that is already in the article: [1]. Surely there's more references about the Māori walking track... I prefer to focus on other articles at presence, but if someone would like to add content about that then go for it. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 04:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Traumnovelle's first post is politely correct. That paragraph in the lead should not be there so I removed it. The first inhabitants of Christchurch, bar a few in the advanced guard came on the first four ships. Before then Christchurch did not exist so a paragraph in the lead about what was there on the land beforehand is, how can I say it, not necessary. What was happeningat Kaiapoi is even less relevant. That detail can be added to a small section in the article about the period before 1850 when Europeans arrived to establish the city. Trade with Maori at the Kaiapoi pa can also fit, with correct weight, ie, a phrase not even a sentence, in a subsection in the article below. If you want all this off-topic stuff in the article, before it even gets to the point of going into the lead, it should be raised here first. Alexeyevitch, there is so much that can be researched and added about Christchurch and its people so why don't you do some research and try and improve this article instead of focusing on one topic of only moderate relevance to Christchurch. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Was it really necessary to delete ALL of the Māori content in the lede? it should be kept... if no reply, then I'll restore most of it. (pre-colonization Māori inhabitants of the Chch region is totally relevant.) Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't say that they came to Christchurch via that route, regardless it's been removed. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore - it's still relevant to Ngāi Tahu and this article alike... I have no idea why Roger removed other content about the local iwi and hapū in chch pre-European colonization (He removed this content with no explanation) Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

This isn't the Ngai Tahu article. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I never said it was. Futhermore - for example: Auckland, Dunedin, and Hamilton have some form of Māori content in their lede... Roger, removed all Māori content in the lede for no reason. (except the Kaiapoi stuff, on which he did give his reasonings on why he removed that) Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

In your own words "Auckland's lede is irrelevant to Christchurch's".

But in all seriousness, I only thought Kaiapoi needn't be mentioned. Early Maori settlement of what became Christchurch should be included in the lead like how Rome mentions (much more briefly, but hey it's Rome) the pre-Roman settlements. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I certainly did. Secondly, I restored content deleted without explaination (not content entirely related to Kaiapoi). Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Cities everywhere have a brief mentionin in WP articles about the land and what happened on it before the city was established. It's a sort of background warmer before the real info starts and is sometimes interesting (eg Romulus and Remus). That brevity is all because what happened before the city existed is not about the city. If there is a connection, that will be developed in the main part of the article in how it affects the city. For chc I suggest a much better pre-city bit of information to mention than a Maori pa in Kaiapoi and the names of various chiefs is the fact that the land was a swamp. That has a clear link to the city that was built on it. Not just the immediate consequences of the earthquakes post 2011 but the way the city was constructed before then. And the history of why the site was chosen and the necessary drainage around 1850. If there is any mention of pre-1850 in the lead I think it should be that, ie the site was marshland that had to be drained. But before that, there should be a fuller explanation in the article below. About removing the whole paragraph - I suggest the bits that should be kept with their sources can be collected up and put somewhere in the main article, but not in the lead. Getting that detail back is easy. I'm sorry to be blunt and dismissive of what you added but it keeps happening. Is there a group agreement that you should be the one to go around adding Maori history and Maori words to as many articles as possible? Like Turnagra has also been doing? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

There will need to be a consensus for that... IMO Māori content should be kept in the lede. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Economy section needs significant rework

Reference to the Infometrics Regional Economic Profile 2023 for Christchurch City [2] indicates that the Economy section needs a complete review, with significant new content added and out-of-date content removed. The text currently claims that Farming is the economic core of Christchurch, but this is not supported by the Infometrics report. Some of this content may more be relevant to the article Canterbury Region. Marshelec (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

It'd probably be best to change 'always' to 'historically', although I presume to change that a new source would be needed that states that otherwise it's synthesis from the outdated OED report and the modern infometrics data. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Spelling words

I made a change today and used the word Maori twice. user:Alexeyevitch later added macrons and in his edit summary accused me of deliberately not adding them, which follows an earlier talk page comment saying it was disruptive by me not to use macrons. I think you should change what you say, Alexeyevitch (and preferably your thinking too). The spelling of that word is m.a.o.r.i. with or without diacritics or capitals, which adapt the letter they don't create a new letter (in English at least). A large percentage of sources, probably the majority, don't add a macron. The word in many dictionaries does not have a macron. If you want to add a macron that is up to you, I've said more than enough about macrons already. You cannot accuse editors of being disruptive because they write something you don't like, especially when it is clearly correct. If you and a bunch of others have decided that words must have macrons that is a flawed consensus decision. It isn't solving a problem of any sort, it doesn't clarify anything, it just reflects the personal preference of you and some others. That is unlike consensus of using UK/US spelling, or calling the city Derry and the county Londonderry, which are practical compromise solutions to ongoing editorial disputes. This is the English wikipedia open to everyone. You don't own all the articles with a loose connection to New Zealand. I've made this comment above the section below so as not to distract from it - the one about tidying up this Christchurch article. What I removed was most of the stuff in that pre-1850 period which, like in the lead, is off-topic and/or not balanced and not properly sourced. Even the first part was not what the CCC library source said anyway. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

What does this have to do with Christchurch? —Panamitsu (talk) 07:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Nothing, it's got to do with accusations-made on this article-of supposedly disruptive edits being made to this article. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Kia ora, the word "Māori" is correctly spelled in English with a macron.[3] The word "Māori" is a loanword from the Māori language. Historic sources often do not include the macron purely for the practical reason that typesetting a macron (even on a computer) used to be difficult. Where they are missing, they should be added.

-- David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

David Palmer, you are wrong. You do not understand what a loanword is otherwise you would not make such a statement. Before you giving an opinion on the spelling of that word in English, you first have to understand how languages work and evolve. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes Roger 8 Roger, the thing you complain about has happened to English several times already and will continue to happen through the history of the language. You don't speak Anglish. During the Norman Conquest, which lasted several hundred years, the UK government spoke French instead of English, which is where a large portion of English words have come from, such as "government", "parliament", "council", "restaurant", etc. Language does in fact evolve this way, and as mentioned in the 2020 RfC, macrons are used more often than they are omitted (10/11 magazines). —Panamitsu (talk) 03:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Honestly I think it is completely laughable to claim the word “Māori” is not borrowed from the Māori language. The dictionary entry I referenced literally describes the etymology as “A borrowing from Māori.” To further quote that source:

> The form Māori reflects the standard spelling of the word in Māori, where the macron indicates a long vowel (compare also the form Maaori). It is the preferred form in present-day New Zealand English, and becoming the predominant form in other varieties of English when referring to the people or the language.

I don’t know how much more obvious this can get. The word is borrowed and is therefore a loanword. -- David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 04:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@David Palmer, When have I ever said Maori isn't a loan word? Once again, please, check your facts and we can then have a discussion. In the meantime feel free to carry on laughing.

@Panamitsu, This issue is not about the evolution of English. Loanwords assimilate/change to fit into English: English doesn't change to fit around a loanword that keeps to its original form, otherwise English would be full of different letters and scripts. The word Maori was assimilated into English 200 years ago and very easily because there was nothing to change, no script. There is no need to assimilate/change that word any more, it fits perfectly well into English. What is happening now in NZ is that the te reo foreign word (with a macron) is being used instead of the English loanword, (without a macron). English is now often using the foreign word (Māori) instead of its own loanword (Maori). That is perfectly possible to do. Problems arise when we try to treat that foreign word as a loanword, such as saying the word is being spelled wrong without a macron - it depends what form you are talking about. If you are writing the loanword then no, without a macron is correct; if talking about the foreign/te reo word then yes, a macron is required. Another problem is David Palmer's comment above, in which he assumes Maori and Māori are the same form, ie both a loanword, and then is unable to understand why Māori is actually a foreign word. If you want to bring in language evolution, it could be said that what is happening is that English is evolving to start using the original foreign word when an assimilated loanword exists. If I choose not to write Māori but to write Maori instead I am doing nothing wrong, I am simply using the English loanword instead of the foreign word. There is absolutely no reason to distinguish between the two forms: they both look and mean exactly the same, except for the macron, and there is no confusion in reading the word, with or without a macron. (To qualify that comment - there is no reason to use a macron unless you have an ulterior motive, such as the planned promotion of te reo.) In NZ there are very many examples where these Maori-origin words are mentioned and the form, loanword or foreign-word, is not distinguished and is therefore used interchangeably at randomly. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I have checked my facts with a subject-matter expert on linguistics and am still not sure what you think I got wrong. If we’re talking past each other somehow then we can drop the loanword issue, it isn’t hugely relevant.

I also checked with another subject-matter expert on formal and technical writing (and English in general) who was of the opinion that not including the macron in the word Māori today would be considered unacceptable in a professional setting, and would be corrected by any professional copyeditor using modern New Zealand English. This matches my own feeling on the subject; my personal perspective is that when I see the word (or any other Māori word) written without a macron I assume the author is either lazy or ignorant of modern New Zealand English, neither of which I wish to be true of kiwis editing Wikipedia.

Back to the issue at hand, you have elsewhere said you deliberately do not use macrons and leave it to the macron police to come by and add them. Fair enough, it is technically (barely) correct English. I also think it was perfectly fair and valid for AlexeyVeitch to note that in their edit fixing your mistakes. If you use other humans as your own personal autocorrect, do not be surprised when the autocorrect sometimes grumbles back at you. -- David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Cloventt and what Panamitsu said earlier. Macrons are common in New Zealand English, and consensus was made a few years earlier was to use them in NZ articles and the word "Māori". I think there's nothing wrong with adding a note that Roger is not adding it.

I am assuming good faith but... it would not be OKAY if I started using the American spelling "aluminum", "colonization" or "kilometer" in New Zealand articles because I simply don't like the British spelling. That is similar to what Roger has been doing with macrons because he doesn't like them or dosen't know how to type them on a keyboard what he said earlier. Consensus was made to use them when needed in mainspace. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I try to add macrons on main space pages when I need to, but despite the vast majority of mainstream media sources using them the vast majority of the populace don't. I wouldn't have a clue on if there's a macron in Waimauku, Kumeu, Kaukapapa, etc., nor where to place one if there is. When I am writing articles I almost always use British/New Zealand English spellings simply because it's my default and what I am used to; I don't stop to think about it.

What you're referring to is making a WP:POINT, omitting macrons because you don't know/forget about them is just a simple mistake. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Significant improvements needed in many sections

In response to the discussion above about the lead, I suggest this is held over until a range of issues with the body of the article are addressed. Then the lead should be completely rewritten to follow the body. I grew up in Christchurch, but the article at present does not seem to adequately represent the city. Here are some points that I consider need substantial improvement:

• there is a need for some more coverage of urban and regional planning, given the on-going recovery from the 2011 earthquake, and forecasts for a large increase in the population
• the Central City sub-section beneath Geography needs review. Details of the history of loss and recovery after the February 2011 earthquake is probably worth covering in a separate article, to allow the Geography section to be reworked so that it is more focussed on the city as of 2024, retaining a link to the proposed separate article and a concise summary. Similar comments could apply to some other sections.
• Having said that, it is surprising that "Red zone" appears only once in the body of the article, yet this area is now a significant part of inner Christchurch and is worth a bit more coverage
• the Avon and Heathcote rivers warrant at least a small expansion from the current brief mentions. Similarly, the Estuary, as a major geographic feature, needs some expanded coverage.
• Parks and Gardens needs expansion, given the "Garden City" handle and the great importance of parks to the city, and their popularity with residents and visitors
• the University of Canterbury is a major institution in the city, responsible for bringing large number of students to stay and study. It no doubt has significant economic and social impact, but is barely covered in the article at present
• as I have noted in the separate topic posting above, the Economy section is out of date and requires substantial rework
• the Transport section needs updating, and could do with sub-headings
• although Music is covered reasonably well, the visual arts are not sufficiently covered. Museums and galleries have only a passing mention.
• utilities are poorly covered, with only Electricity mentioned in that section. Water is currently covered under Geography. However, given that significant parts of the city were a swamp when European settlers first arrived, there is an important and interesting topic of land drainage and sanitation in Christchurch that needs to be covered at least briefly, including the wastewater treatment plant and oxidation ponds at Bromley.
• the Sport section needs work to replace at least some of the bulleted lists with prose. As one example of content that could be reviewed, I see no need for bullets listing the skifields that are within easy driving range of the city. It could be argued that individual skifields should not be mentioned at all in this article.
• in my view, the long lists of inner and outer suburbs in the Geography section are tedious for the reader. Perhaps they could be moved to a new list article, with just a link and a summary paragraph.

I may be able to help with implementing some of these suggestions, as part of a team, if a volunteer is willing to establish an improvement project and be a co-ordinator. Marshelec (talk) 07:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

A thorough tidy up appears to be in order. I agree with removing unnecessary lists: making them is a habit common throughout wikipedia and for some editors it is all they do. I think one problem is that articles like this turn into tourist guidebooks and storeroom of fairly trivial information - the story of the week in today's media. Getting a broader overview to put everything in context, even with the requirement to lean towards more recent information, isn't straightforward. To create a balanced sub-section with correct article-wide weighting takes time, requires effort, and means having to check better sources than online library blogs and today's p5 story in The Press. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be worthwhile for a new collaborative project to be established to review a range of articles associated with Christchurch, and implement improvements such as those I have suggested above. The current national parks articles project is an example of how some co-ordination can be helpful. See: Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/National parks. It just needs someone who is willing to take a co-ordinating role, and encourage/ influence other editors to contribute. We can possibly take some inspiration from GA-rated articles about cities. Here are a few examples of diverse approaches to an article about a city, but these have all passed a GA assessment: Honiara, Kraków, Lincoln, Nebraska, Marrakesh, Portsmouth. It is clearly possible to get this article to a similar standard, and I would be happy to contribute if there is someone willing to co-ordinate, and there are a few other willing helpers. Marshelec (talk) 08:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay... I will be able to help (shortly after my wikibreak), we might discuss this at the next Tūranga meetup... to collaborate working on the Chch article and hopefully getting it to GA status. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Kia ora @Alexeyevitch, should we set up a Wikiproject taskforce or something similar for Christchurch? I think there is scope to create a project or taskforce similar to the WikiProject Auckland. It might make it easier for all of us interested to coordinate on improving articles related to the city and region. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 03:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'm happy to organize a WikiProject with you. Most of the Chch articles are lacking info (and in some cases images), they have the potential to be better. (E.g. the North New Brighton and McLeans Island)

As Mike said in the Tūranga meetup: the Christchurch article(s) needed significant improvement.

I'll be happy to organize this WikiProject and other meetups in the city center. :-). Alexeyevitch^(talk) 07:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

That's great. I suggest that a useful first step is to prepare a project scope, and list the main articles that need to be included as a set for the purposes of improving the main Christchurch article. For instance, there is a good case for a new list article to list all the suburbs, so that this content can be moved out of the main article to make it easier to read (although the context is a little different, see how this has been done at List of suburbs of Auckland). There may be justification for several other new list articles that can provide information that is important, but is too detailed for the main article.

I also have a view that there is a need for a new article that describes in some detail the loss of heritage buildings and other civic infrastructure in the 2011 earthquake, and the recovery. The rationale would be to ensure that there is a good written (and photographic) integrated record of loss and recovery/replacement etc, but avoid having too much of this in the main article. One example that could be included in this proposed new article is the loss of the Bus Exchange, and its replacement by the Bus Interchange, but there will be a great many other notable cases, including heritage buildings, schools and churches, the Christchurch Railway Station etc. It might be practical to document the loss and recovery (if there was a recovery), in a table in a list article. This would be easier to achieve than trying to construct prose, and in some cases there is already a reasonable description in separate articles (for instance Oxford Terrace Baptist Church, and Christchurch railway station, New Zealand). So the proposed table/ list article would be able to link to some existing articles, but would not be limited to those cases.

For the main article itself, I suggest a table listing the main section headings with some brief suggestions of the scope of work that is required in each section. If this is set up as a Wikiproject, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/National parks, it will have a talk page where the proposed scope can be discussed, before the main work gets underway. I am willing to help, but don't want to be the overall co-ordinator.

Marshelec (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

With regards to related list articles and the loss of building stock, allow me to draw attention to the following two articles:

• List of tallest buildings in Christchurch (the file from which the coloured image is created lives on my computer; I have updated it many a time)
• List of historic places in Christchurch

After the earthquakes, I made it my mission to photograph all the listed places and there aren't many that I missed. The article has a section "List of lost historic places" and that is rather incomplete; there are many more of the places listed on that page that have since been demolished.

Either way, those two lists will help with what you are discussing above, Marshelec. Schwede66 04:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Schwede66 has pointed out that there is already an extensive list article List of historic places in Christchurch that presents tables of heritage buildings in Christchurch, including lost heritage. However, at present, this article is not linked or mentioned in the main article, apart from a rather hard-to-find inclusion in the navigation template Christchurch earthquakes at the bottom of the article (and normally the template is collapsed anyway). I recommend a brief section in the main article about lost heritage, with a clear link to the list article. I have also found that there is a book that specifically covers the loss of heritage buildings and notable streetscapes and structures (including rocks) that resulted from the Christchurch earthquake: Christchurch Heritage: A Celebration of Lost Buildings and Streetscapes [4]. Along with other sources, appropriate reference and linking to the list article and also to this book should allow the main article to be revised to remove or reduce content about historical buildings and landmarks that were lost. In particular, I recommend removal from the main article of images of buildings lost in the earthquake.Marshelec (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if this can be approached from a slightly different angle. I don't think Christchurch was particularly notable for its heritage buildings pre-quake, not more so than many other cities only 160 years old. What is perhaps more notable is that they (nearly) all went at one point in time. And, that most of the replacement buildings have all been erected at or soon after that point. In 50 years time people will not be looking at Christchurch and lamenting the lost heritage buildings, they will be looking at all the buildings that are the same age, built with common architectural themes. The title of any subsection should therefore not be 'Lost heritage', but something like 'Christchurch city building design'. One reason for this was the decision not to replace like for like, which did happen in some European cities post war, that had been flattened by bombing. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

This is a good suggestion in my opinion. A more general section on the city's architectural narrative that covers the neo-Gothic origins, mid-to-late 20th century brutalism and the modern post-earthquake rebuild would make a lot of sense. As pointed out above, there are already dedicated articles for the topic of lost heritage buildings. -- David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I might have a crack at expanding the pre-colonial history section. -- David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Kia ora @Traumnovelle, regarding this edit, the terms mahinga kai and kainga nohoanga are cultural terms with a more complex meaning than the simple translations you have replaced them with. This is why I had used them - to make it clear to the reader these things have special significance in Māori culture. I appreciate the use of these terms may not be familiar to some readers, which is why I had also included appropriate translations in parentheses after them.

To clarify why this is important, a kainga nohoanga is not just a "seasonal camp"; the term can also refer to a larger area where such camps were commonly set up to support nearby food gathering operations. Similarly, a mahinga kai is not just a "foraging ground", the term can refer to specific food gathering operations (eel weirs, for example), crop cultivation or foraged food sites such as fernroots. Most critically, attempting to translate these terms to English causes them to lose their connection to much more significant concepts in Māori culture, such as te ahi kā and mana whenua; these concepts are not related by the English terms "foraging ground" and "seasonal camp".

These differences of understanding were central issues in the Ngāi Tahu treaty settlement claims and can be avoided by using the correct cultural term as I had, with a brief translation for the benefit of readers not familiar with them. In all the historical sources I have read (and some of which I have cited), the correct Māori cultural terms are used without an attempt to translate them into English; they are treated as technical/cultural terms, which is the way they should be used in this context.

I would prefer to add them back, though from reading MOS#Foreign words on the use of foreign words I would do so using the {{lang}} template. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Every settlement ultimately has some cultural importance to it's people.

>the term can also refer to a larger area where such camps were commonly set up to support nearby food gathering operations

So it's a vague term? That's all the more reason to describe it with a simple term of what it actually was.

>Similarly, a mahinga kai is not just a "foraging ground", the term can refer to specific food gathering operations (eel weirs, for example), crop cultivation or foraged food sites such as fernroots.

So it'd be better to refer specifically to what is was used for, or as 'X was used for foraging, hunting, and agriculture/crop cultivation'.

>Most critically, attempting to translate these terms to English causes them to lose their connection to much more significant concepts in Māori culture

If it's such a significant concept it'd merit inclusion in the paragraph with an explanation of what those are. I don't even know what te ahi ka and mana whenua actually mean, and certainly no one outside of New Zealand would. Do these concepts actually provide more information to the reader about the greater Christchurch area?

>These differences of understanding were central issues in the Ngāi Tahu treaty settlement claims

Well this isn't a treaty claim, it's an encyclopaedic article that has readers from across the globe.

If this is a complex concept it can be linked to with 'main' tag, assuming an article explaining Maori cultural land beliefs exists. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

A quick heads up to Clovett and others. Don't waste time shoving lots of irrelevant Maori history detail into this article about Christchurch because it will be removed at some point. If you want to keep that stuff then start a separate article although an obvious title eludes me. There is much detail that could be added to this Christchurch article, enough to take up hours of your time. Don't overlook wp:weight. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't call these terms "vague", rather I would call them "not directly translatable to English", which is a good reason to use them without attempting to translate them.

> Do these concepts actually provide more information to the reader about the greater Christchurch area?

Yes, they do. They help to establish that there was a cultural conflict and misunderstanding involved in the initial acquisition of the land by the European settlers. That is a topic that could be greatly expanded in the subsequent section on the European settlement of the city. Currently, there is no mention of Māori in any of the subsequent history sections. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Do they really? Does 'there was misunderstanding involved in the acquisition of land for Christchurch due to Maori cultural concepts' not explain that sufficiently? Although it is a bit hard to judge that given I'm not even sure what you're referring to, as there is currently no section on this. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the meaning of these terms as used in Kemp's Deed was of central importance to series of claims made for Christchurch by Ngāi Tahu at the Native Land Courts as far back as the 1860s. The original purchase promised all kainga nohoanga and mahinga kai would be reserved for Māori ownership. Some of these sites (for example, Puāri, where the former law courts currently are) are right in the heart of modern Christchurch. These places were alienated from Māori ownership because of very narrow and specific translations of what are complex cultural terms (eg, mahinga kai was interpreted by the courts to mean only places with permanent cultivation, which excluded much of the land that was used on a seasonal basis). The topics of land ownership and acquisition are certainly relevant, and at least deserve a mention in a brief history of early Christchurch. Therefore, these Māori cultural concepts and terms are central to those topics, and should be included. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

That linked article doesn't mention those terms, yet I understand just fine what the issue was. The Maori were meant to be set aside reserves, which didn't happen to the proper extent. I fail to see how a translation is the issue here as the reserves they did receive wouldn't even support British farming methods for their population. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The linked article leaves a lot to be desired, and the educational value of it as an encyclopaedic resource would be enhanced if the terms were mentioned, as is the case here. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Well I seem to be able to understand the issue just fine without understanding the Maori cultural concepts. Land was promised to be set aside and most of it wasn't. The point of this article is not to be in depth on Christchurch's history, it's to summarise key and important events of the history. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad you are able to understand the issue without understanding the cultural concepts. However, using the terms in this way is not about making the reader understand in detail what those cultural concepts are; it is merely about making the reader aware that those wider cultural concepts do exist, and that they are relevant to the discussion. If a reader does not understand the issues for some reason, then by researching the cultural terms used in the text they can begin to widen their understanding of the topic. That is why every professional writer I have read so far on the subject of early Christchurch has used these terms, and it is why we should use them here. It improves the specificity and correctness of the writing. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 02:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

That's what tags like 'main' are for. Articles on broad topics don't delve into quite such specific detail on issues. Your inclusion of the terms doesn't even mention or reference that they are cultural concepts, they just look like Maori words that haven't been translated to the majority of readers. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

They were translated, in parentheses, after their first use, as appears to be the norm elsewhere on Wikipedia for use of foreign words in a discussion, and inline with WP:MOS.

If full articles for these cultural concepts existed, I would link to them. They are certainly worthy of their own articles, and I may one day add them. For now though, I think the use of these Māori cultural words was justified in a paragraph specifically discussing early Māori cultural use and occupation of the land that became Christchurch. As you rightly say, this article would be an inappropriate place to go into detail on the exact meaning and interpretation of these terms. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 03:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

What I meant was they look like Maori words that just haven't been translated into the sentence itself. There's no mention of cultural concepts and just having the words in Maori does not do that. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Copied from above by Cloventt-"Yes, they do. They help to establish that there was a cultural conflict and misunderstanding involved in the initial acquisition of the land by the European settlers. That is a topic that could be greatly expanded in the subsequent section on the European settlement of the city. Currently, there is no mention of Māori in any of the subsequent history sections." If this were the case, you have to show why it is notable enough to the development of Christchurch for it to be entered into this article. No, it should not be greatly expanded. Being of relevance to Maori, being of interest to a particular social group, being this decade's cause célèbre, being of interest for its own sake, are all not enough. Even if you can do that, you next have to consider what amount of space in this article should be taken up by it. I have suggested before, the answer will be a couple of sentences. Please remember, that even if Maori history in the 19th century has been neglected by scholars or society to the detriment of us all, that in itself is not a reason to cram as much of it into this article as possible. Our personal opinions about the topic count for nothing - it is what sources say, sources that are given their correct weight. Remember, there was a few hundred Maori in Canterbury in 1840-1850 and virtually none on the Christchurch site. Now, a broader concern I have with this coffee get-together discussion, something that has been expressed elsewhere in Wikipedia about other subject groups, is that it has the potential to cause more harm than good. We mostly all have areas we know something about and areas we know little about. You cannot therefore start allocating jobs to a random collection of people and expect those jobs to be done properly. The group will quickly become as good as its worst editor, bogged down by macrons, list templates and census data, instead of adding properly referenced material that actually improves an article. I know little about geology so I don't edit geology articles, whether asked to or not. I often see editors working on topics I do know something about who are acting in good faith but are making an article worse. Maori as a group have had notably little influence on Christchurch, certainly in comparison with North Island cities. The Deans dealt with local Maori about land acquisition when they settled in Riccarton, as did the French in Akaroa, and there would be a few other notable topics worth mentioning, but not much more. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey there, you said: "Now, a broader concern I have with this coffee get-together discussion", are you refering to the Tūranga monthly meetups? it's difficult to understand to what you're refering to. If so... your reasoning to me is sounding like "I just don't like it", which isn't valid per WP:JDL. Please explan more if that isn't your reason.

Secondly, it's a wiki which means anyone can edit it... we're collaboratively trying to make the chch article(s) better. (they're doing us a favor if they are contributing positively) Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Māori history in Christchurch is certainly relevant to the topic of Christchurch history. A few sentences would seem woefully inadequate to me. There are mountains of literature on the role of Māori in early Christchurch and I’ve had no issues finding plenty of high quality sources on the subject.

If you feel my addition to the start of the history section adds too much weight to the subject, please feel free to get on with the necessary work of expanding the following parts of the history section, which are currently far too brief and have some obvious inaccuracies. That would help to push the balance away from Māori issues. If you feel my brief contributions so far have made the article worse somehow, then all I can say is I completely disagree. They are really pretty restrained considering the amount I could have written on the subject.

You seem to be implying some sort of “pro-Māori” conspiracy at these meetings and amongst editors in general, which is not the case. As I recall at the last meetup more time was spent discussing how much history on local theatres should be included than any issues related to Māori content. If you’d like to volunteer to collaborate on expanding and improving topics around Christchurch, we could certainly use the help! You should consider attending a meetup to help us get the ball rolling.

If your concern is pro-Māori bias, please also consider your own biases. You should also consider the possibility that you may be wrong, no matter how strongly you feel on the subject. If you have knowledge and expertise on the subject of Christchurch history, please use that to contribute to the article. So far it feels like more work has been wasted unproductively arguing on this talk page and reverting edits than actually improving the article. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 10:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Economy section modified - but more is needed

I have made a start at improving the Economy section. I retained almost all the original "Farming" section but changed the tense and it is now presented as history. More fresh content is needed, to better describe the transition that has occurred over time, the rise of new industries, and the reduced reliance on servicing agriculture in the wider Canterbury Region. The problem is where to find good sources. I will keep looking, but more help would be great. It may also be appropriate to cull some of the content about agriculture in the Canterbury Region, and/or transfer it to the article Canterbury Region. Feedback please :)___Marshelec (talk) 23:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree, information about agriculture in Canterbury could be reduced where it isn't directly relevant to Christchurch. I would suggest:

1. Move the "Economic profile in 2023" to the start of the section
2. Rename the "History" section to "Agriculture"
3. Remove basically everything after the first paragraph of that section, but keep the mention of agribusinesses within Ōtautahi that support regional agriculture, plus maybe export via Lyttelton. (A lot of wool used to be exported through there)

Also, the new section is excellent, thank you for adding it. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Restructure history section

Now might be a good time to restructure the sub-headings. Separating it by centuries is a common IMO lazy practice throughout WP. A better divide should be by the dates of major turning points. Some dates that spring to mind are 1859-1876/provincial govt; 1867/Lyttelton tunnel opens; 22-02-2011/earthquake and there are other key dates. What is currently in the 21stC. section is not important enough, not even the mosque killings. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes I agree. There also needs to be work done copyediting the section as there currently is not proper use of paragraphs. There also still may be text worth removing, as I've just removed a sentence about the Spanish flu. —Panamitsu (talk) 11:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the pandemic death toll in the city is worth mentioning. But it only needs the briefest of mentions as part of a narrative about what happened in the city during that time period. You’re completely right, the lack of paragraphs and proper narrative structure is a problem. An otherwise disconnected sentence (like the one on the flu) can fit much better as part of a proper narrative flow. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

The influenza epidemic does need to be included, as 462 deaths is notable by any measure. A link could also made to Bromley Cemetery (as the majority of the victims were buried there) and the Nurses' Memorial Chapel (as two nurses who died are commemorated there; the article doesn't say that yet). The Christchurch Library article also points out that Christchurch was better prepared and thus had a lower death rate, although that might be better dealt with in a new article Spanish flu in New Zealand. Schwede66 21:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Good suggestion.

I assume when you say the mosque massacre isn’t important enough, you mean it isn’t important enough for a heading? If so I agree.

That event should definitely get at least a brief mention somewhere though, it was extremely significant. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Mosques - yes, I mean it has not had an impact on Christchurch which is the measure to use. In simple terms on the death count, the Spanish flu ranks much higher - many more deaths against a smaller population. I think covid can be treated in the same way as the mosque killings - it hasn't had any real effect on chc. What might appear to be a huge event at the time, due often to media coverage, is really not much more than passing news: here today gone tomorrow. About covid, IMO if there is anything notable it is that chc, and nz, did not have any lock down for a year while the rest of the world was stuck indoors and dying en masse Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

The lists of suburbs - what to do ?

My opinion is that the current presentation of the lists of suburbs is tedious for the reader, and provides negligible benefit for the space it occupies on the page. I am also uncertain about whether "inner suburb" or "outer suburb" has any reliable defined meaning. I seek feedback on options (or additional suggestions):

Option 1: Delete all existing lists, add a brief overview paragraph and include a link to the relevant category, where all suburbs are already listed. eg

See also: Category:Suburbs of Christchurch

Option 2: Delete all existing lists, but create a new article: List of suburbs of Christchurch. The main content of the list article would be a presentation of all the suburbs in a sortable table, initially presented in alphabetic order. An initial suggestion for attributes to be included in the table is given below.

List of suburbs

Surburbs of Christchurch

Name	Area (ha)	Coordinates	Electoral ward	Notes
Mairehau	348	43.4988°S 172.6403°E / -43.4988; 172.6403	Innes Papanui

Any such list article largely duplicates the existing category. The infoboxes of suburb articles include a population count, but I hesitate to include this in the proposed table for the list article option, because of the increased maintenance requirement this would create. Overall, I am uncertain about the benefits for the reader of a list article. Some benchmarks are List of suburbs of Canberra, and List of Cape Town suburbs, but these are not inspiring. The article List of suburbs of Auckland appears to have a somewhat different genesis, possibly related to the integration into the "super-city". The "Satellite towns" section also requires some thought. My initial suggestion is to retain this, because it is of interest, and is not particularly large. Feedback on the options please. Marshelec (talk) 02:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd say just stick to the suburb and information useful for the reader trying to find it like the geographical area/local government, information like coordinates and area is better off being on the suburb article itself. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

A benefit of including co-ordinates in template form is that a reader can click on the link to immediately see a map showing where the suburb is located. If there is going to be a list article, then I think this is worth retaining. In comparison, the area is of no real help, and is in the individual suburb article infobox anyway. However, I am still not 100% convinced that a list article is worth having. Perhaps a link to an Open Street Map visualisation showing all suburb names would be better ? Marshelec (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Try this link: [5]. Provided we retain the link to en:Category:Suburbs of Christchurch, then I am inclined to think that a visualisation is actually more useful than a new/separate list article. Marshelec (talk) 03:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't use OpenStreetMaps, it's like Wikipedia but for maps. I've noticed in Auckland there are non-existent suburbs. Why not just link to the Cantebury council's official map? https://mapviewer.canterburymaps.govt.nz/ Traumnovelle (talk) 03:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Correct, OpenStreetMap is user-generated content and therefore not a suitable source for citing material. But I think it would be OK to include a Template:Mapbox or something similar of Christchurch suburbs, which would use OSM for the layer and we add our own markers for suburbs.

Alternatively, Canterbury Maps is actually under an open license (CC-BY 4.0), so we are free to take screenshots and include them. We can use that as a visualisation of suburbs of Christchurch, perhaps with annotations linking to the relevant articles on each suburb. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles make extensive use of maps sourced from Open Street Map, and I am aware of initiatives to increase integration. For the present, I propose to add an Open Street Map via an Infobox frame. The suburb names are represented well._Marshelec (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Side note: the suburbs list say "clockwise", such as "(clockwise, starting north of the city centre)". Initially I was a bit confused about what this means. Does it mean that the suburbs go more south further down the list? I can't think of a use for this, and if a reader was to come looking for a suburb, I assume he/she would expect it to be in alphabetical order. So whatever happens to the list, I think we should sort it alphabetically. —Panamitsu (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

If there is to be a list I think it should be very simple in alphabetical order, much like the notable people lists. Added to each suburb should be its general loction, ie, NW, coastal, hill, directly south of the centre/four aves, and a few words of general description such 'built around an industrial core', newly created post-earthquake. The ariticle on each suburb will have more detail. Christchurch suburbs are notable for being non-definable so any attempt to define them is doomed to failure. Creating template lists with all sorts of data is pointless except in that it gives someone something to do. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh, maybe we're wrong. Toitū te Whenua actually does maintain an "official" list of suburbs in Christchurch as part of their "Suburbs and Localities" dataset. A quick look at the dataset shows that it accounts for some of the vagueness, with some suburbs (such as Papanui and Northcote) having overlapping areas. This entire dataset is CC-BY 4.0 licensed so we can copy information from it as we like. They apparently maintain this for the benefit of the postal system. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

My revised proposal is to remove the lists of suburbs, include the template link to en:Category:Suburbs of Christchurch, add in a sentence or two of introduction, and also add an infobox containing an expandable map. Are there sufficiently strong reasons to create a new list article, when the category provides that same list ? I think that a map showing the location of suburbs is probably more useful than describing them as being east or west etc. Marshelec (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

A map cannot define the exact location of a chc suburb, with only a very few exceptions. That is one of the main reasons why chc suburbs are not suited to being categorised. A general location is the best that can be done. Half the people in chc can 'choose' which suburb they live in depending on which best suits their need at any given time. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, I accept that (and experienced that during my youth in Christchurch anyway). However, all the individual suburb articles I have looked at so far have a coordinate and link to Open Street Map. It doesn't define the boundary, just gives a centre point for the map. If I go ahead with creating a new list article, I still favour including a linked coordinate, for the convenience it provides for readers of the list article to click on the link and see on the map where the suburb is generally located. Building the list article in a sortable table will take a bit of work but I am willing to do it, if there is support. I looked at a few Featured Articles about cities, but there is not a lot of consistency in the treatment of suburbs/ neighbourhoods. However, I found that large lists of suburbs/ neighbourhoods were not in the main featured article - large lists were always in separate list articles. So if there is support, I will go ahead with preparing a draft.__Marshelec (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I have begun work on a separate list article for the suburbs. This draft currently includes 15 out of 88 suburb names that are listed in the main article. I will wait for feedback before proceeding further. See: Draft:Suburbs of Christchurch. Marshelec (talk) 07:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, fair point. I think listing the neighborhoods in a separate article is good. I agree with your point that it occupies space and may be tedious to read for readers. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 07:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the Category:Suburbs of Christchurch has already solved this problem, so I don't think we need a separate list article.

I think a blurb at the top of the category mentioning that there is no formal/official definition of "suburbs" in Christchurch and that they're really just vague locality names as per @Roger 8 Roger's comment above would also be useful to add. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, I will be bold and go ahead with removing the list of suburbs in the article, and replace with some brief narrative, a link to the category, and a map. See what you think. Marshelec (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

That looks really good, though the map doesn't seem to work on my browser. Probably a skill issue on my part David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

That is unexpected. I have now tested the Christchurch page using Edge and Chrome on my laptop. In both cases, the suburbs map presented in the Infobox presents normally as a "thumbnail", and expands correctly when clicked in the top right box. I tried the Wikipedia mobile phone app as well, but it didn't display the map. However, looking at other articles with an interactive map, it seems that there is a consistent limitation with interactive maps in Infoboxes - they don't work in the mobile phone app._Marshelec (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I suggest that the mobile phone app sucks, which is why I'm not using it. I use desktop view on my phone, which isn't ideal but at least it shows me everything. Schwede66 00:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Images in the Infobox

Does anyone have any sugestions for a better image instead of the current one of New Regent st. We should have a better image portraying the city's rebuild... maybe the Terrace? Or maybe a better image of New Regent st. If no objections are made, I'll likely change it.

Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

When I think of Christchurch I think of Cathedral Square and the ChristChurch Cathedral, which could be an option. Although this might not be a good idea due to damage. —Panamitsu (talk) 10:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

This may be a good image:

I note that when it's restored a new image of it will replace it. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The infobox images look great. Good improvement. I suggest we replace one of the images (maybe "Avon River with Christchurch Convention Centre Precinct, Christchurch, New Zealand" as it's the second instance that shows the Avon) with something that shows Banks Peninsula. Schwede66 00:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I've had a poke around and offer the following Banks Peninsula photos for consideration.

Hover over the images to see some notes. See what you think. Schwede66 01:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I like the second one and fourth one the most... I like how colorful they are. The third one looks a bit dull. The monochrome shot is good, but it's not as good as the second one and fourth. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 01:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I've put the fourth image into the infobox. Schwede66 19:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

This is not a tourist brochure nor a CCC pamphlet. I suggest we change our thought process entirely, see - Although this might not be a good idea due to damage The objective of the photos is to present Christchurch as it is now, worts and all. The image of chc central is not of chc central, its of a river; the picture of Akaroa is not of chc, it's of Akaroa, a 90 minute drive away. An image of the Manchester/St Asaph/Tuam Sts area would be a better reflection of Chc now, than most of the images being used - ie, remaining quake damage and road cones. Being well taken with a fancy camera is preferable to cell phone snaps but that in itself is no reason to use an image. I agree, Cathedral Sq is the centre, so show it, including the remains of the Cathedral. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

An image of St Asaph st and Tuam st or the derelict Sol Square will be silly in the infobox. I would argue that the New Brighton Pier is more worthy then the cathedral (in the infobox) untill it's restored. And it would also look silly for a random street in a neighborhood to be featured in the infobox, something that "truly" represents the city. The current images look really good IMO. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 00:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

This is exactly the problem - you don't get it. Yes, the images should reflect Christchurch, they shouldn't reflect a newly built building unless that building does reflect Chc. If you really don't understand that I can't say much more. A derelict site is a good reflection of Chc now because until very recently most of the inner city looked like that, AND, it reflects the earthquakes. The wording beneath a photo of rubble would say why it is rubble and why that is a reflection of Chc. I think the best rubble photo is of the cathedral. Akaroa should be removed immediately because that is silly in the extreme. If you want to improve this article I suggest there is no alternative but to do research and thinking, which takes time. Adding a few pretty snaps is doing none of that. This is not a promotion of chc. It is at the tail end of a decade of enormous upheavel and that is what should be reflected in photos. I suggest some thought is given to the description beneath the images. For the cathedral something like : 'The remains of chc cathedral, the iconic heart of the city, left there for ten years because no decision was made about what to do with it' Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The reason I said "Although this might not be a good idea due to damage" is because I think we should avoid giving the false impression that the city is still full of damage, and an image of a damaged cathedral in the infobox could do that. This makes it difficult because the cathedral, in my view, is the most iconic part of the city. A caption, as you suggested, is probably the best way to get around that. —Panamitsu (talk) 01:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I support including an image of the Christchurch cathedral, as it is now, as one of the images in the Infobox. My reasons: (a) the city has been profoundly altered by the 2010-2011 earthquakes, and in my view there is no better way of showing this than depicting the cathedral as it is today, (b) Cathedral Square is the physical centre of the city, and has always been a focal point, (c) the cathedral has regularly been used in symbology and images depicting Christchurch, (d) the debates about what to do with the damaged cathedral have been protracted and regularly in the news (ie it is highly notable).Marshelec (talk) 03:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Marshelec's reasons for including a photo of the cathedral in current condition with bracing and printed façade. That said, I can't see any suitable photos on commons that show the current state of the cathedral. Something similar to this image from the CCC would be best but this is not under an open license. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 03:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, but an image of the derelict Sol Square site will be silly. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 04:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

This image has good colors:

Alexeyevitch^(talk) 05:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I note this is an image that we could use in the city section maybe earthquake? And we'll add a bit of info on the restoration work in the city E.g. Te Kaha stadium and Metro Sports Facility. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 06:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

What image should we replace? I'm thinking the one of Banks Peninsula as mentioned by Roger 8 Roger.

I've had a look around Commons for an image that we could use, but haven't found a good one viewed from Cathedral Square (like the position of the image on ChristChurch Cathedral). —Panamitsu (talk) 03:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Last time I looked, Banks Peninsula was part of Christchurch. Schwede66 05:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Convention Centre Precinct

Given that there is an active discussion on this talk page between many editors, could I draw everyone's attention to the move discussion for the Convention Centre Precinct? It could do with more input. Schwede66 00:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Amalgamations

One aspect that isn't covered yet, at least not in a comprehensive way, is the history of amalgamations that has resulted in what we now understand to be Christchurch. If I know this right, Richmond was the first area to be amalgamated with Christchurch (it was split off in 1890 from the Avon Road District). The last amalgamation was Banks Peninsula in 2006. The former isn't mentioned yet, and the latter is listed in the section on "Local government". Obviously, there was heaps in between those two amalgamations (with the biggest chunk in 1903).

Question is – where should this topic be covered? Under "History", "Geography", "Local government", or a new chapter? Meanwhile, I'll start a table of amalgamations in my sandbox. Schwede66 06:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no "right answer", but my inclination is to describe the history of amalgamations under the Local government heading. The topic is of interest, but I note that the Christchurch article is already quite long, so if there is content for a lengthy new section on this topic, it is worth considering whether a separate article would be the best approach.Marshelec (talk) 07:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The list of amalgamations in my sandbox may be complete now. Gosh, there was a lot going on over the years. There would certainly be enough for a standalone article. Schwede66 10:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Central city section

I propose to substantially reduce the content in the section: Christchurch#Central_City. Looking at FA and GA rated articles about cities, the main subdivision Geography usually doesn't contain the kind of detailed content we currently have in that section (typically, there is just a high level description of divisions/part of a city). Plus, there is a separate article on the topic of Christchurch Central City anyway. Content in this section that is not already included in the separate article could be relocated there. (Disclosure: part of my motivation is that I want to add more about the physical geography and geology of Christchurch, but I am a bit concerned about the overall length and readability of the article as a whole, so it would be good to find some content to trim). Any comments before I go ahead ?_Marshelec (talk) 07:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I do think it is necessary to mention the rebuild of the central city. I also think the televison section is poor and and could be merged or removed completely. CTV stuff is notable and can go in the history section with a citation. The fith paragrpaph needs a trim and the sixth paragraph should be removed trimmed significantly then merged into the earthquakes section. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree. There’s way too much detail in this article about the central city. Schwede66 09:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Later 20th century section needs expansion

State housing is an important part in the growth of Christchurch, maybe another sentence and citation on immigration? and the CTV stuff needs to be referenced. I also think the image in the central city section (from 2007) is inappropriate and should be replaced by another image, maybe the ChristChurch Cathedral image I talked about earlier which has beautiful colors and depicts the city very well. I'm happy to start working / improving content in these sections. Your contributions are appreciated. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The direction I had been moving in was having sections based around major cultural shifts. In my mind this would be similar to:

1. Provincial growth would cover the period up to WW1, pretty much 1920.
2. Mid-20th century for the "stable" years between 1920 and the 1960s/1970s, possibly a short section.
3. Suburban growth for the rapid growth between the late-1960s and late-1980s. The suburban growth really took off with the state housing initiatives in the late 1960s; you're totally correct this should be covered.
4. Modern city for the 1990s and 2000s when a lot of city icons like the trams, gondolas, etc occurred and the city started shaking off the "old-fashioned english city" reputation.
5. And then a section for 2010-today to cover the earthquake and recovery.

Suburban growth and Modern city could possibly be combined. I'm open to suggestions on the section titles. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, it is important to cover the industrialization of the city, and that could lead us into the state housing section (and include the Ballentyne's fire)

In my view, it's 1970-today because it will be a bit awkward having the Commonwealth games in another section. And the image in the central city section should be removed, if no objections then I'll change it to an image that represents the city better. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 23:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)