Wikipedia

Talk:Heritage New Zealand

Latest comment: 9 years ago by Ballofstring in topic Lists of historic places
Learn more about this page

Categories for NZHPT edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

Discussion edit

I've added a lot of material to this subject area, both in terms of Wikipedia articles and files on Commons. I suggest that it could be useful to categorise the content more finely, and introduce the same system of categorisation across both WP and Commons. I propose the following categories:

This would result in the following category tree:

Replace xyz with the following (note that I am suggestion having spaces before and after the forward slashes):

  • Northland
  • Auckland
  • Waikato / Coromandel
  • Central / Bay of Plenty
  • East Coast
  • Taranaki
  • Wellington / Manawatu
  • Nelson / Marlborough
  • Canterbury
  • Otago / Southland
  • West Coast

All up, that would be 25 categories. Feedback welcome. Schwede66 19:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I would prefer that we used the 16 regional council areas, because the subcategories created could then be parented by the geographical cats. Are there many listings which span regions? That would create 35 categories. It does seem like a lot of categories, when there are currently about 150 articles within the listings, and only 26 articles about Category II listings. Presumably this number will grow; there are 5500 registered historical places, and probably most of these would be appropriate for a Wikipedia article.-gadfium 22:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
We could do it the way you suggest, Gadfium. Or we could assign the 11 NZHPT regions to the 16 regions, with some cats thus belonging to more than one regional council region. I'd definitely be keen to have somebody draw up a map showing the 11 regions, and that gets overlaid with the regional council boundaries, we would quite simply see where the overlaps are. We could create all of the subcategories now, or create them on an 'as needed basis' (I would prefer the former approach).
In addition to what I have proposed above, I would also like to propose to have categories for the regions, e.g. Category:New Zealand Historic Places Trust listings in the Canterbury Region. I've implemented this on Commons, where I've done the Category I subcats for Canterbury already, so that you see where it fits into the category tree. That's probably most useful if you are interested in NZHPT listings for a region without wanting to differentiate between Category I and II listings.
Another interesting aspect is that there might be articles on WP about structures, but they haven't been categorised as being on the register. For example, I've only just realised that the Lyttelton Rail Tunnel is registered, so I've added the category.
How I've realised this is even more interesting. There's a listing of all NZHPT structures in Christchurch on the German Wikipedia in somebody's userspace! Who would have thought that? Obviously, that's a useful resource, and I've asked the user whether we can add some English language details to the page, so that it becomes usable for those editors who are more comfortable in English. Schwede66 00:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
I'd really like to use the regional council areas only, these are the widely used/understood top level subdivisions, and dovetail with the existing category system. With the maps from Statistics NZ, it's possible to determine which regions buildings on either side of a border street fall into. I don't see the method for the NZHPT areas but it appears to be peculiar. It's best to create the subcategories where there are existing articles, empty ones can be C1 WP:Speedy deleted. Can we also look at shortening the names, Category:NZHPT Category I listings in the Canterbury Region for example? The UK uses e.g. Category:Grade I listed buildings in Cambridgeshire. XLerate (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
Ok, I'm sold. Schwede66 02:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

The parent categories have recently been moved to avoid the abbreviation, but nothing has happened to the subcategories as yet. I'll adjust the list below accordingly. Schwede66 01:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

List of regions edit

  • Northland Region
  • Auckland Region
  • Waikato Region
  • Bay of Plenty Region
  • Gisborne Region
  • Hawke's Bay Region
  • Taranaki Region
  • Manawatu-Wanganui Region
  • Wellington Region
  • Tasman Region
  • Nelson, New Zealand (note that Nelson Region redirects there)
  • Marlborough Region
  • West Coast Region
  • Canterbury Region
  • Otago Region
  • Southland Region

Commons edit

I've set up all the links for the Commons categories on this talk page.

Wikipedia edit

Here's what this means for categories on Wikipedia:

And the region subcategories:

Categories can't be empty, so only create them when you have files that can go into it. Schwede66 19:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just a note to page watchers that there is a discussion underway on renaming the categories. Schwede66 05:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
The outcome of the category discussion is that the abbreviation will be replaced with the full name 'New Zealand Historic Places Trust'. Schwede66 16:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Historic Areas edit

I'll also set up categories for the registered historic areas as required. They would be a sub-category to the regions:

I'll implement the corresponding structure on Commons, too. Schwede66 19:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Name change to "Heritage New Zealand" edit

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Would it be appropriate to change the name of this article, and all the references in it, to Heritage New Zealand, now that the organisation has changed its name? See this news item on their website for more details – Ballofstring (talk) 02:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Fine by me, but maybe we ought to put this through a formal move request to make sure that everybody is happy. Schwede66 04:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your response! I've put a move request template in :) — Ballofstring (talk) 07:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Requested move edit

Latest comment: 9 years ago9 comments7 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved, as there's clear consensus to use "Heritage New Zealand". If editors think "Pouhere Taonga" should be included in the title as well, they should start a new move request. (non-admin closure) —innotata 19:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

New Zealand Historic Places Trust → Heritage New Zealand – The New Zealand Historic Places Trust has rebranded as "Heritage New Zealand". See this news item on their website for more details. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 10:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC) Ballofstring (talk) 07:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

  • Support as per the discussion above. Schwede66 18:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Seeing as moving this article will presumably result in a lot of categories also being renamed, I'm giving this a relist. Jenks24 (talk) 10:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • As per Section 5 of the Act the name is Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (i.e. all one name). See also our treatment of Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, where we use the full name and have a buttload of redirects. Since the real world will take a while to to catch up, I'd like to request that all moves (including cat moves) leave a redirect. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Support in line with Stuart's suggestion - redirects under this circumstance would be appropriate. NealeFamily (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Support - Stuart's suggestion makes sense! Do we need to formally change the move request to reflect the new name? Ballofstring (talk) 02:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment I for one don't believe that the Te Papa article has the right name. Have a read of Wikipedia:Official names and Wikipedia:UCRN. To me, the question is whether Heritage New Zealand has already become the common name, or whether this move would come too early. For the reason of the two links given, Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga would not find my support. So if others here feel that this is the way to go, then I would indeed suggest that a formal move request be initiated. Schwede66 05:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment - As a Canadian, I can attest that changing article titles to reflect bilingual official names would cause a tidal wave of changes across Wikipedia (think of the Swiss! Why doesn't anyone think of the Swiss?) Surely we should use the common English language naame so that we don't end up with unwieldy article names like Royal Canadian Mounted Police/Gendarmerie royale canadienne or Canadian Broadcasting Corporation/Société Radio-Canada. Ground Zero | t 20:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lists of historic places edit

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I suggest that eventually, we ought to have lists of places listed by Heritage New Zealand on the English Wikipedia. I'm saying "English" Wikipedia because, believe it or not, such lists exist on the German Wikipedia, and this category has the 172 relevant pages.

I'm aware of two such lists on the English Wikipedia:

With some 170 lists to go, maybe it would be a good idea to be somewhat strategic about it. It should, for example, be possible to build on the nice template that was developed for the German Wikipedia, create the equivalent template for the English Wikipedia, and then have an automated process that translates the various lists from German into English. That would, of course, then need a little tidy, but would be a easy and painfree exercise for creating a lot of pages building on other editors' good work. I've noticed that many of the existing photos of heritage sites aren't included in the German lists, so the process of translating the lists should ideally be preceded by adding those photos that we do have on Commons.

What do others think? Schwede66 20:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm a little leery of any technical work that links out to their website, given that they've just restructured it and broken every link we had. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
Isn't that the point of having templates? When they change things around, the one thing that won't change is the ID for each item. Just like with DNZB, wouldn't we simply record the ID number, and the template does the rest? Or am I misunderstanding you, Stuart? Schwede66 21:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
A list sounds good! (I noticed that German-language list when I was adding a picture to Former National Bank of New Zealand Building and saw that on the original flickr picture you mentioned that it was in use :-) ) Talking of the template - is there any way we could update that template to redirect to a new Heritage NZ template (ie with the same parameters but the name would be different). I don't really know much about how templates work otherwise I might try to do it myself! — Ballofstring (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heritage_New_Zealand&oldid=1202683631"