Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board

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: 14:37 27 November 2022 NZDT (refresh)
Universal time and date: 01:37 27 November 2022 UTC (refresh)
Notice: Since November 2014 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand has redirected to this page. Archives for the page can be found below.

ArchivesEdit

Article alertsEdit

Did you know

Articles for deletion

Proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

A-Class review

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

Wellington Wiki Meetup Saturday 3 September 10am until NoonEdit

Reminder: There is an "in-person" #Wikipedia meetup being held at He Matapihi Molesworth Library at National Library, corner Molesworth and Aitken Streets, #Wellington TOMORROW Saturday 3 September 10am - Noon. If you are in Wellington come along! See the agenda for more details. Ambrosia10 (talk) 05:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Infobox namingEdit

There are discussions about formal/offical names in infobox titles at Talk:North Head, New Zealand, Talk:Mount Smart and Talk:Pigeon Mountain (New Zealand) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. E James Bowman (talk) 07:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  • It is difficult to follow this issue with three identical conversations on three different pages, so might it be better to bring the discussion here? Furius (talk) 09:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
    Agreed, but I don't even know why this is a discussion. There's previously been a consensus established about this, and even if there wasn't WP:INFOBOXGEO seems pretty unequivocal in saying that a formal name can be used. This seems to perfectly suit dual names regardless of whether or not they should have more prominence, and to claim that official names aren't formal names is a distinction without a difference. Turnagra (talk) 09:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
    Ngā mihi Furius and Turnagra, I agree with you both, and have suggested on the three talk pages that we move the discussions here. I'm looking for consensus on using the formal/official/gazetted names of Tūpuna Maunga as the title of the inboxes where they are not the article title, as per: MOS:INFOBOXGEO which states Infoboxes for geographical items (e.g. cities and countries) should generally be headed with the article title, although the formal version of a name (e.g. Republic of Montenegro at Montenegro) can be substituted. The formal/official/gazetted names are cited in the three articles as being formally listed in the NZGB Gazetteer, are used by the Tūpuna Maunga Authority, Auckland Council and in the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014. E James Bowman (talk) 06:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
    At Talk:Pigeon Mountain (New Zealand)#Infobox naming, BilledMammal has replied to the suggestion of moving the discussion here: "Per WP:LOCALCON, Wikiproject NZ cannot form a consensus about these articles. Instead, I will continue to reply here; as I suggested above, if you believe it should apply to official names, rather than the more limited formal names, you should open an RfC at MOS:INFOBOX." BilledMammal seems happy to have a discussion at Talk:Pigeon Mountain (New Zealand)#Infobox naming to represent all three maunga articles. E James Bowman (talk) 00:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

1, It’s honestly kinda funny that both of you went so long having three identical conversations. 2, I have no strong feelings about which name is used at the top of the infobox. 3, It’s somewhat absurd to suggest that an official name is not included in the concept of “formal name”, and realistically it should be added to the MOS if it’s not already clear because the guidance clearly implies either is fine. 4, Based on that specific, noncommittal guidance, I don’t think WP:LOCALCON applies because if we did decide to use one or the other consistently—common or formal—it wouldn’t be contravening what amounts to “either is fine”. — HTGS (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:LOCALCON is more that WikiProjects can't make decisions that are binding on the rest of Wikipedia; if a WikiProject wants to make a rule, they need to go to the broader community and get their support. BilledMammal (talk) 02:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
If the global consensus is that either X or Y is fine, and a WikiProject decides that Y is appropriate for pages within its purview, does that still require going to the broader community to get support? WP:LOCALCON links to an ArbCom statement which says "on subjects where there is no global consensus, a local consensus should be taken into account". Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes; WikiProject's cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. If the generally accepted policy or guideline is that either X or Y is fine, a WikiProject cannot decide that for articles within its scope this does not apply and that only Y is appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 09:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
That makes sense. Presumably there would be nothing wrong with a WikiProject expressing that many members have a particular opinion on whether X or Y might be more appropriate but noting that both X and Y are valid and that consensus needs to be established for each article? (I'm thinking something similar to the stance of WP:Composers on infoboxes as outlined here).
I suppose also in any event this hinges on whether official names are formal names; if they're not then the point is moot. My instinct is that it seems odd to say that official names are not formal names. I can see it being helpful/not unusual for dual named articles to have the dual names heading the infobox (eg Rarotonga / Mount Smart), whereas for North Head, New Zealand it seems to me to make sense for North Head to be the title rather than Maungauika. That's my opinion in any event. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with it, and even relatively common. They're not always accepted by the broader community, with WikiProject Composers preference on infoboxes being one of those rejected, but they sometimes are - I think WikiProject Icehockey has a few that are in common use.
It's not an unreasonable opinion; depending on the context I could even go along with it - E James Bowman reminded me of a proposed compromise that HTGS made that included the dual name in the infobox like that, and that compromise might be a reasonable way to settle it. BilledMammal (talk) 00:14, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
This is such a bizarre take - every wikiproject has their own conventions, which occasionally differ from global approaches. Suddenly deciding that wikiprojects can't do this seems to go against the grain of that (and incidentally is probably something you'd need to get global consensus on). We're not proposing anything that would be binding on the rest of wikipedia and I'm not sure why that's even being brought up. Turnagra (talk) 06:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Wikiprojects can have conventions, but they can't enforce them on the rest of Wikipedia - and to be clear, the "rest of Wikipedia" includes articles that the Wikiproject decides to be within its scope. BilledMammal (talk) 09:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
So, what you're saying is that even if everyone here comes to a consensus you're going to ignore it and continue to revert dual name usage? Turnagra (talk) 10:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Are you saying that you plan to try to enforce a Wikiproject consensus on the rest of Wikipedia? BilledMammal (talk) 11:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Please answer my question. Turnagra (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I think there is often confusion about consensus, local or not. Consensus cannot override wp policy or guidelines. What it can do though is make rules on how those policies and guidelines are implemented. The Derry case is a good example. No decision is made on the correct name with both being acceptable. But for the sake of handling it the local project can agree to use Derry for the city and Londonderry for the county. Guess what - it works! IMO much of this naming problem here in NZ is based on a small town attitude that its our country our project we're different anyway so we can make up our own rules if we want to. To me this attitude leads to oddities in NZ articles, and at times some edits bordering on nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger 8 Roger (talkcontribs) 10:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Can you give an example of what you see as "oddities" or "nonsense"? Turnagra (talk) 10:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I read MOS:INFOBOXGEO as indicating that the name field in (for example) North Head, New Zealand should be "North Head", unless and until the name of the article is changed. Maungauika isn't "the formal version of" North Head, it is a different name. Furius (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
    That might not be the best example, as it seems that the naming situation there is a bit different (and sidenote: it seems the volcano itself is known as Maungauika, while the headland is known as North Head. Given the article is only talking about the volcano, perhaps it should be moved?). If you look at the mountain currently at Pigeon Mountain (New Zealand), it's officially known by the dual name of Ōhuiarangi / Pigeon Mountain. Given that MOS:INFOBOXGEO expressly says that the formal version of a name can be substituted it seems like the official name meets that criteria perfectly well and can be a useful compromise for when the article isn't at its dual name. Turnagra (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
    Even in the Mount Smart and Pigeon Mountain cases, this seems a step beyond from the "Macedonia" -> "Republic of Macedonia" case. The analogy with dual named Swiss places, shows that the infobox there follows the article name, whether it is one of the dual names (e.g., Bern) or both (e.g., Biel/Bienne). Furius (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Simpleist solution is to use the title of the article, with any other important name included underneath. --Spekkios (talk) 08:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Simplest solution would be to use the name which includes both other names within it, instead of doubling up everything. Turnagra (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Why would we be doubling up everything? That doesn't make sense. No reason to double the title of the article and any other name. I didn't suggest any doubling at all. --Spekkios (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
If you're having the dual name, the Māori name, and the old English name, then you're doubling up on each name. For instance, listing "Stewart Island / Rakiura", "Stewart Island" and "Rakiura" means that both "Stewart Island" and "Rakiura" show up twice. It's much cleaner and more straightforward to just include the dual name, which ensures all of the names are represented. Turnagra (talk) 07:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
I was talking about having the article name and any other name underneath. So in your example it would be "Stewart Island" and "Rakiura", the English and Maori names. --Spekkios (talk) 07:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
And Stewart Island / Rakiura - you know, the name it's officially and commonly known as? Or have you graduated to pretending that dual names don't even exist? As a reminder, the lead sentence on that article is currently "Stewart Island (Māori: Rakiura, lit. 'glowing skies', officially gazetted as Stewart Island / Rakiura) is..." - are you trying to tell me that "Stewart Island / Rakiura is..." wouldn't be cleaner? I know this isn't the infobox, but it's an equivalent point. Turnagra (talk) 08:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
I havent "graduated" to anything, and the way you are wording that implies, to me at least, that you are suggesting something about my conduct on Wikipedia. If you do, please raise it through the normal channels.
And no, I'm saying it would be cleaner to not include the official name in the lead or infobox as both components would already be included. It's standard for geographical articles that have names in multiple languages to do so. Discussion and stating the official name can take place later in the introduction. Not sure how that's "pretending dual names don't exist". Please stop making unwarranted accusations towards me. Spekkios (talk) 09:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
The cleanest and simplest solution is just to have the dual name rather than the excessive doubling up. Many pages already use this format such as Benneydale, Grey River (New Zealand), and Haast Pass. They've have been that format for a while now. This format effectively shows the official name and also leaves room for alternative names if required. There is more detail about the dual name deeper in the article. It is also worth noting that there was a wide ranging discussion at WP:NCNZ only a few months ago that most editors here were involved in - see:Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand)/Archive 4#Lead sentence and infobox. There was a majority there advocating for a simple solution of using the dual name at the front of lede and in infobox. ShakyIsles (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @ShakyIsles, that seems like a reasonable summary of this discussion to me. BilledMammal are you comfortable with me reviewing the 14 Tūpuna Māunga articles and applying that thinking where it simplifies and aids comprehension? E James Bowman (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
It is very easy for editors, including me, to be drawn into an ongoing debate and lose site of the main point, which is often quite simple. That main point is "are these multiple new official names ALL in common usuage as defined by reliable secondary sources". If the answer is yes then we change all NZ articles to reflect that fact; if the answer is no then we leave as is and mention the official name somewhere in the article; if the answer is sometimes then we ask the same question on a case by case basis. It really is that simple. In answering that question we need to consider that all publications contolled by the govt are not reliable for the purpose of placenames, hence they should not be used as reliable secondary sources. And, the reliability of some non-govt controlled sources is also questionable in relation to Maori-related words in general. This is because some of those sources prioritise making a profit over refecting common usage. Anyone doubting that should see today's penultimate page of The Press where the Maori word for common sports is given equal weight in the headings. Also we must remember to avoid being big fishez in a small pond: we can not reach a consensus that overrides wiki policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger 8 Roger (talkcontribs) 22:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
@Roger 8 Roger: I think I may have asked you before about the background to your comment that "some of those sources prioritise making a profit over reflecting common usage"; I would've thought there'd be little profit in using words your readers aren't familiar with? FYI also, Māori words are probably being used by The Press today for a more straightforward reason. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Your initial argument is certainly true of article titles. Those should reflect the most common usage, or be widely accepted names for other established reasons. This discussion is about infobox titles, that are by default the same as the article title, but can be formal names (which I and others argue include gazetted official names). E James Bowman (talk) 06:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
No, it's not appropriate to remove the common name like that. BilledMammal (talk) 03:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Setting aside discussions about what the common name is, even if we assume for the sake of argument that it's the old English name - it's still right there, which is entirely the point. "Aoraki / Mount Cook" still contains both the name "Aoraki" and the name "Mount Cook". We're not removing anything. Turnagra (talk) 05:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks BilledMammal. Given this discussion, are you comfortable with me reviewing the Tūpuna Maunga articles and using the official names as the infobox titles? (Ensuring the article title remains a part of the infobox title). E James Bowman (talk) 06:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
If the lede is also changed to match hike395's compromise proposal, yes, I would be comfortable with that. BilledMammal (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
I would be open to that if only to put this discussion to bed, but I feel like there is already a stronger consensus from that same discussion to use the dual name for both - the only reason that hasn't been progressed is your WP:STONEWALLING. Turnagra (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks BilledMammal. I’ve edited Pigeon Mountain (New Zealand) based on Franz Joseph Glacier. Are you OK with this now? E James Bowman (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
I've reviewed the other Tūpuna Maunga articles and made updates in the same way. E James Bowman (talk) 06:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
@E James Bowman: I've updated Pigeon Mountain to match the compromise proposal I was referring to. BilledMammal (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
BilledMammal you've removed the official name from the intro of Pigeon Mountain (New Zealand). It should be there as well as the infobox, as per Wikipedia:Official names#Where there is an official name that is not the article title. E James Bowman (talk) 04:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I assume, chocs, good faith. Printing what people want to read is called (obvious) business sense. Your link merely confirms that. Why you counter my reasoning with a source that confirms my reasoning is beyond me. I do not think my argument needs a source because it is patently obvious. What next? Will you try to tell us that in NZ English the Maori word for the national game flows off the tongue as readily as does rugby, or football, or union? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger 8 Roger (talkcontribs) 03:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I wasn't trying to counter your reasoning at all. I just didn't quite follow the point you were making, because you say Māori words aren't in common usage, yet there's profit for newspapers in using them... I don't quite follow how that can be, I guess? Apologies if I'm missing something obvious. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
With all due respect, nothing in your argument is patently obvious. Please provide some sources to back up your points. Turnagra (talk) 06:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Shaneel Lal - multiple issuesEdit

I'd appreciate some fresh eyes to have a look over Shaneel Lal. Multiple issues have been flagged with the page. As an early editor of the page I feel that I am too familiar with it. Cheers. Nauseous Man (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Aotearoa New Zealand Online MeetupEdit

A reminder to folk that the Aotearoa New Zealand Wiki Online Meetup will be happening on Sunday 18 September from Noon until 2pm NZST. See the agenda for the link and more information about the meeting. All are very welcome. Ambrosia10 (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Island Bay, New Zealand#Requested move 10 September 2022Edit

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Island Bay, New Zealand#Requested move 10 September 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 13:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Bernard CadoganEdit

Kia ora,

my username is Exulesambo and I am mainly active in the German Wikipedia section. I wrote an entry about New Zealand poet and political advisor Bernard Cadogan [de] in German. As yet, there is no English entry for Bernard Cadogan. Is there any New Zealand Wikipedian who would like to host the project? I have a good English translation of the German entry, provided by a native speaker of English. I could forward you the translation and you could tweak it and edit it a bit. If interested, please contact me. Best, Exulesambo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exulesambo (talkcontribs) 09:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that offer, Exulesambo. The problem is that the English Wikipedia has much stricter referencing requirements for WP:BLPs than the German Wikipedia. As such, this isn't as simple as adding some Wikilinks to a translation but it does not more complete referencing, too. In its current form, it would not be accepted in en.WP, or much of the content would have to be culled. Schwede66 09:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree that this is a very generous offer. I don't think that the problems are insurmountable. I think the way forward is to place the English translation at Draft:Bernard Cadogan. We can then indicate where citations are needed. Since @Exulesambo: has recently authored the article, they presumably would be able to add the relevant citations. We would also need some sources talking about Cadogan's poetry (reviews and such); once we had the draft in front of us, I think it would be possible to insert those into it. Furius (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Tena koutou,
and thank you for your replies, Furius and Swede.
Below, please find the text for an entry about Bernard Cadogan which is more or less a translation of the original German version. I can supply the references and links needed.
I am aware that the biographical entries in the English-speaking Wikipedia pages are usually a bit more matter of fact and that there are slightly different conventions concerning the length and contextualisation of biographies. So please feel free to adopt the text to those requirements.
Best, Exulesambo

I have removed that text. This isn't the place to wordsmith that; please click on the red link that points to the Draft space above and create the draft article that way. As I said before, content isn't going to be the issue, but referencing will be. There is no point starting a discussion on content without the referencing being in place that establishes that WP:GNG has been met. Schwede66 02:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Kaupapa Māori translationsEdit

Something that's been bugging me recently...

Many articles that discuss topics related to Māori discuss or link to particular Māori concepts such as mana and tapu/noa. These references are clearly necessary to properly discuss these topics in the correct context. Many of these articles also feature single-word translations of the kaupapa. While explaining these concepts is necessary to ensure the article is usable for a global audience, these, I believe, are problematic, as they are often overly simplistic, do not capture the actual concept, and are inconsistently applied. We already have articles about many of them, so a simple link would seem to suffice. Should we get rid? YttriumShrew (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

This probably has to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Mana, tapu and noa clearly don't have translations, but (for example) utu probably can be glossed with "reciprocity" or "revenge" depending on context. Where it is possible to offer an English gloss, wiki should do so. I think Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Technical_language "Avoid excessive wikilinking (linking within Wikipedia) as a substitute for parenthetic explanations such as the one in this sentence." probably requires this, but even if it doesn't apply, I think it is good for accessibility.
It might be a good idea to gather common terms here and evaluate whether glosses can be offered for them and if so, what might be good default terms (based obviously on the practice of reliable sources). Furius (talk) 00:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up, definitely something we need to consider. It's come up in the past in a few instances around the use of kāwanatanga, as well as even some broader nouns like kōhanga reo or mahinga kai. I think I'd prefer not having the explanation if we've got a page we can link to, but I also think before going down that route we need to make sure those pages are up to scratch. For example, we don't even have a page for te ao Māori (or Māori studies, but that's an aside), so we couldn't really rely on a link there until any article is at a level where the link could properly explain it. Turnagra (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
@Furius I'd suggest Category:Māori words and phrases might be a good place to start in terms of creating that list you've mentioned?
@Turnagra I agree about kāwanatanga, but with something like kōhanga reo, in my view a brief explanation like "Māori immersion preschool" would be helpful together with the link. I agree with Furius that where it's possible to give an English explanation it's good for accessibility, even where there's a decent supporting article. I'm thinking along the lines of "kaumātua (respected elder)" or "whānau (family)" or "whakapapa (genealogy)"... those seem to me to be reasonably uncontroversial, provided of course that the parenthetical explanation makes sense from context? Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Absolutely, especially if a more contextually meaning of the word is appropriate in the article (e.g. kaupapa, which can mean a lot of different things). --Prosperosity (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Oh sorry, I misunderstood. I was thinking about instances where the term was being replaced by a translation rather than using the actual term (eg. "Māori school" rather than "Kura kaupapa Māori"). Totally happy with having those translations in some cases where it'd be useful, so long as doing so doesn't potentially lose some of the nuance. I'm also assuming that this would only be in the first use of the terms and not in subsequent uses in the same article? Turnagra (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
@Turnagra Ah yup, I follow you; and yup, agree completely. I generally use "Pākehā (New Zealand European)" followed by subsequent uses of Pākehā without the wikilink or parenthetical in the same article, for example. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 08:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Honestly, if a word needs glossing, we should probably consider if making a whole article might be a better idea. --Prosperosity (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree that, if a word needs glossing, we should also have an article on it. But I think it's useful to give a short gloss right away (or a longer explanation in a footnote, or a full explanation if the concept is central to the topic, e.g. kāwanatanga on Treaty of Waitangi). This is what is generally done, for example, with articles dealing with German topics and a page of German terms (e.g. on legal topics) without glosses is pretty intimidating! @Chocmilk03 - Right! I'll add a list below and then we can all annotate it together. Furius (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Just thinking about that specific example, Turnagra, I really can’t think of a situation where using kāwanatanga in wikivoice would be a good idea. The word is so potentially problematic that it really shouldn’t be used unless in the context of its own meaning. In general I agree with Furius though; we have to remember that Wikipedia is printed and in other contexts presented without the option for clicking through. A simple gloss can always be extended to a footnote if necessary for context. — HTGS (talk) 00:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
I think the contentiousness of how it is translated is part of the reason why it should be used in certain contexts (which may very well be the ones you're meaning). If I remember correctly, where it had come up was in the context of a line which read "Māori ceded kāwanatanga" to "Māori ceded governance", which invites a lot of the disputes around that term. Turnagra (talk) 03:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Honestly if it’s only a tangentially related topic, I would say, “Māori signed the Treaty of Waitangi” (unambiguous, and linked), but if it’s a closely related topic, I would actually explain it with far more than a simple gloss. Obviously this is a particular sort of example that’s getting away from the main topic, but I hope that helps with where I’m coming from. — HTGS (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
I think we're both saying the same thing - if there's a better way to phrase the sentence then sure, but if we need to use a term it should be kāwanatanga with a proper explanation about what that is. Turnagra (talk) 07:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Kaupapa Māori termsEdit

Here is the list of terms that WP currently has articles for. There are several striking omissions (and many others that have been hidden by being made into redirects). I've listed glosses that we give in the respective articles, which might just be an indication that those articles need more consideration. I suggest that we add terms that are missing, if only to get a sense of what it would be good to have articles for, and that people comment on whether the glosses that individual articles use are satisfactory or not.

  • Mead gives this as "tradition" (as opposed to "tikanga" = "custom")- Mead 2003 p. 2 [1] but on p. 12 points out that that's a very unclear distinction. This term should perhaps be discussed on the tikanga page. Furius (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Ahuwhenua - "a principle in Māori culture, relating to industrious cultivation of land"
  • Aotearoa - "New Zealand"
  • Seems uncontroversial? (I mean, there might be controversy over when to use Aotearoa and when to use New Zealand, but Aotearoa being defined as New Zealand isn't?) Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
  • ariki - "persons of the highest rank and seniority"
  • ea - a state in which all parties to a conflict are satisfied. - Mead 2003 p. 27 [2]
  • This goes into the utu article, I think. Furius (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Hapū - "subtribe", or "clan"
  • Like iwi, I would have thought that this would be a gloss that would be relatively uncontroversial? Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Usually used to mean tribe, I think. Does anyone have any concerns with using "iwi (tribe)" on the first use and "iwi" subsequently? Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
I think they can be discussed in the same article, but we'd need to do a bit of work on that and what it would look like. Turnagra (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
  • This is another one I'd think would be reasonably uncontroversial. Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
  • - Mead 2003 p. 8 [3] glosses this as "practices and protocols" i.e. the implementation, where tikanga is the theory, but he notes that Te Arawa define the two terms the opposite way. This seems like something that we should mention at tikanga Furius (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Although language nests is the literal translation, I generally would use "Māori immersion preschool" or similar when referring to a kōhanga reo in an article. Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Should there be an article on this? Furius (talk) 08:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
There is an article for Te Kotahitanga, the parliament. I'm not aware of any other meaning for which an article would be warranted. Nurg (talk) 08:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
  • - Mead 2003 p. 8 [5] puts this under tikanga, so perhaps we should too? Furius (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I find this depends greatly on context Furius (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Pākehā - "non-Māori New Zealanders of mainly European descent"
  • The use of "Pākehā (New Zealand European)" seems to me to be uncontroversial, where it's appropriate to use the term Pākehā (I generally wouldn't use it unless it's used in the source). Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
  • This goes into the tikanga article, I think. Furius (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Is it necessary to use a gloss for pounamu? I probably wouldn't, in the same way I wouldn't use a gloss for Māori bird or plant names etc (stones seem to be on a similar level, although I can't quite articulate why!). Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
I think it wouldn't be necessary if one were writing for a New Zealand English audience only, but for a worldwide audience I think it is helpful (when I talk about pounamu in Europe, I always get blank stares). Similarly for birds and plants, I try to make it clear in some way in text that I'm talking about a bird/fern/tree/whatever and I usually include an image if the creature is important to the article or paragraph as a whole. Furius (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Seems a fair gloss/description? Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Should this be a standalone article? I'm not sure that there are dimensions of the concept that are not covered by Tino rangatiratanga. Furius (talk) 08:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Rohe - "the territory or boundaries of iwi"
  • Rūnanga - "a council, tribal council, assembly, board or boardroom"
  • Tā moko - "tattoo"
  • Taha Māori - "the Māori perspective"
  • Takatāpui - "similar to LGBTQI+ people"
  • This article could use work, btw. Furius (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Take - "breach which requires resolution of some sort" - Mead 2003 p. 27 [8]
  • This goes into the utu article, I think. Furius (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Does the term have nuances that distinguish it from "Māori language" and would therefore warrant a second article? Nurg (talk) 09:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't think so. We could maybe think about moving the Māori language article but I think the current title is fine. It does have quite a bit of usage as a term though, so we should probably have a consistent approach to it. Turnagra (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Tika - "right" or "correct" in the context of tikanga - Mead 2003 p. 25 [11]
  • This goes into the tikanga article, I think. Furius (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I think the presence of "adoption" acts as a sufficient gloss. Furius (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
What about some specific values / concepts? I'm thinking about things like rangatiratanga, kaitiakitanga, kotahitanga, whanaungatanga and so on. There might be some overlap with their root terms (rangatira, kaitiaki and so on) but there may be some that are worth their own article. Turnagra (talk) 03:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Wouldn't that list be better in the Maori Wikipedia, or a Maori-English dictionary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger 8 Roger (talkcontribs) 07:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Turnagra: I've added them to the list and added queries about whether they should have articles. If other terms occur to you then do feel free to add them to the list - I simply scooped these up from the category as was recommended by Chocomilk above, so I'm sure I've missed some. Furius (talk) 08:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks - I'm sure there are more, they just haven't come to mind immediately. Turnagra (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I 100% agree that work is needed in this area, but I think that this approach isn't quite right. To supplement this I think we need standard advice on linking to Wiktionary (see for example https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/marae) and to encourage each other to get these terms properly defined there. Wiktionary is the right place for discussing Māori loan words in English which have different meanings / shadings of meaning in each. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Improving definitions on wiktionary is surely a good idea, but: (1) I don't think we're really talking about Māori loan words in English, so much as Māori terms/concepts used in text as Māori terms. (2) I suspect that wiktionary editors will argue that detailed explanations of the nuances of Māori terms belong on wikipedia not wiktionary (I don't think a link to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/marae is actually superior to a link to marae). (3) if one of these terms comes up in text and all we do is provide a link to wiktionary, then we seem to me to be violating the spirit of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Technical_language "Avoid excessive wikilinking (linking within Wikipedia) as a substitute for parenthetic explanations such as the one in this sentence," even if we aren't violating the letter of it. Furius (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
(1) en.wiki is in various varieties of English, Māori words here are loan words by definition (except direct quotes, etc). (2) That's not my experience. (3) I'm not suggesting ONLY a link to wiktionary, but linking in addition, where appropiate; I may have been insufficiently clear, sorry. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Wellington Wiki Meetup Saturday 1st OctoberEdit

The Wellington Wiki meetup is happening tomorrow Saturday 1st of October 10am at the He Matapihi Molesworth Library at National Library, corner Molesworth and Aitken Streets, Wellington. See the agenda for more details. Ambrosia10 (talk) 00:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Wellington Wikipedia Edit-a-thonEdit

On Saturday 8 October we're holding an "in person" Women in STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts & Mathematics) edit-a-thon. It starts at 11am and will be held at the Home Of Compassion in Island Bay, Wellington. To register your attendance see this eventfinda link. For more information on the event itself see the editathon meetup page. Hope to see any Wellington based editors there! Ambrosia10 (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Auckland Museum Wikimedia Alliances Fund applicationEdit

Hi all! The Auckland Museum has lodged a grant application for the Wikimedia Alliances Fund. We're hoping to secure funding for our local history project: to develop useful history resources for teachers/students for the major areas and suburbs of Tāmaki Makaurau, employ summer students to learn how to edit Wikipedia (especially those with financial barriers that stop people from editing), and host GLAM outreach events to provide advice and resources for people wanting to work on local history.

We'd love to hear your thoughts and feedback on the application, which you can do here. --Prosperosity (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Planning on moving the statutes pagesEdit

As per WP:RMNOT, if a move is uncontroversial, then just do it yourself. I thought at the very least I'd post it here though.

We have these pages:

And then there is NZ:

There's no consistency in this and it actually made it difficult to find that page. I feel it would be uncontroversial of me to just move them and make them consistent with our fellow common law commonwealth countries, and set up "List of Acts of the Parliament of New Zealand".

I was also thinking that instead of it being split by government, which has an indeterminate period, leading to situations like List of statutes of New Zealand (2017–present) which will inevitably have to be renamed later, we just do it like the UK and from now on give each year its own page. A list of 60-80 is plenty sizeable. Either that or do it by parliament, "List of Acts of the 53rd Parliament of New Zealand", which would be 2020-2023. I favour by year since it's consistent with the UK.

If no one's against it I can go ahead and do it, otherwise happy to set up a move request and vote on it. El Dubs (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Supertrinko. I have no opinion on the proposed change from statutes to acts, although I wonder whether the capitalisation is correct. I suspect it is not. But I shall not be concerned.
I don't agree with the British way of grouping all things parliament by decade. It's an illogical approach and we should not replicate this silliness here. Many years ago (a decade?), we had a discussion how to group NZ by-elections. British editors wanted us to adopt their breakdown by decade but we came up with something far more sensible; this template has navigation links if you are interested. There are many more acts than there have ever been by-elections, so something more fine-grained is appropriate, and parliamentary terms will do just fine. Schwede66 05:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Grouping by Parliament does seem the best method. We can list the years of that Parliament on the primary list, so if someone is looking for an Act from a particular year, they should be able to find it.
In terms of capitalisation, I would defer to the law foundation style guide, which gives a few words that should always be capitalised in a legislative sense. El Dubs (talk) 08:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Support the shift from statutes to acts, since it seems consistent. And I agree with Schwede66 that grouping by Parliament seems appropriate. IdiotSavant (talk) 05:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree. I cannot immediately think of a reason for not using 'acts' instead of 'statutes'; and by parliament seems better than by year as well. As an aside, the history sections everywhere on WP are broken down into centuries and decades which is nearly always simplistic and artificial. They should be altered too, but that might be for another day. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
+1 to the use of Acts and to breaking it down by parliaments. Turnagra (talk) 04:30, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Should also add that I'm happy to help with the transition to government pages if we want to organise it somewhat! Turnagra (talk) 05:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

In theory the NZ list includes secondary legislation (i.e. government-issued rules with a lower status than Acts, think https://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2022/0030/latest/LMS642093.html) but since these don't appear to be actually listed, I can't see this being a problem. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Support the change from statutes to acts, and agree with Schwede66 that grouping by Parliament is sensible.--Marshelec (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree that splitting by Parliament is the best bet. Unfortunately the current listing does not easily identify parliaments, and there are 53 parliaments, but only 16 pages of Ordinances/Acts currently. The existing acts also miss a lot of information that the later acts hold, such as Date of Assent and legal citation. All the information is also purely based on the NZLII names, seemingly copy-pasted. But the NZLII database is maintained by just one (very lovely) person who has limited resources, and there are a few discrepancies from the acts themselves. So I'll correct as I go.

There's roughly 17000 acts I think? Based on the size of the NZLII database and adding the ones from the leg website since 2007. So it'll take a while, but it should be a general improvement on the information currently stored. El Dubs (talk) 11:08, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Local Government Elections and Template:NZ officeholder dataEdit

Just wondering a couple things with this template:

  1. is the idea to update the whole template at once or should I be popping in the new ones as I come across them?
  2. are we good to start updating now as long as it's not a close race, or should we wait until the totals are officially finalised?

Cheers, Techhead7890 (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Paewiki set this up. I’m unaware how and where this is used; maybe they could comment. I wondering about it because it shows Simon Bridges as Tauranga MP, which is no longer true. Schwede66 11:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I've updated the mayors (with TBD for the four races too close to call), and Tauranga MP.-gadfium 22:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

FAR noticeEdit

I have nominated Elizabeth II for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. John (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Aotearoa New Zealand Online Meetup Sunday 16 OctoberEdit

A reminder to all New Zealand or New Zealand interested editors, the online Aotearoa New Zealand Wiki meetup will be held this Sunday the 16th of October 2022 from 12 noon until 2pm. The agenda and link to the meeting can be found here. Ambrosia10 (talk) 08:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Category:Volcanoes of the New Zealand seabed has been nominated for discussionEdit

 

Category:Volcanoes of the New Zealand seabed has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. This is to try and rename it for consistency with similar categories internationally, would love your input! Turnagra (talk) 00:19, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Wellington Wiki Meetup - Saturday 29th OctoberEdit

A reminder to anyone interested the Wellington Wiki Meetup will be held in person from 10am until noon on Saturday the 29th of October at He Matapihi Molesworth Library at National Library, corner Molesworth and Aitken Streets, Wellington. The agenda can be found here. Ambrosia10 (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of Newshub reliabilityEdit

I just want you to be aware that there is a current discussion at WP:RSN regarding the reliability of a New Zealand news organization called Newshub. Please feel free to participate with your opinion. The link is here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Newshub. Forich (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I have replied there. No need to pile on; just a confused editor. Schwede66 16:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Removal of 'multiple issues' banner on Xero pageEdit

Kia ora WikiProject New Zealand. I'm JT from Xero, and I have made a request on the Xero talk page that may interest members of this group. The request was made a wee while ago so I'm hoping one of you has the capacity to take a look (I know the backlog is very high at the moment). I'm an employee of Xero so I have a conflict of interest and do not make edits myself. Thanks very much in advance JT at Xero (talk) 02:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I've sorted out the promotional language and removed the template. E James Bowman (talk) 04:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Getting Older 1981–1991Edit

 

The article Getting Older 1981–1991 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

NN album

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. UtherSRG (talk) 13:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Aotearoa New Zealand Wiki Online Meetup Sunday 13 NovemberEdit

A reminder to New Zealand #Wikipedia #Wikicommons #Wikidata & #Wikisource editors and anyone interested in the same. We're holding a virtual meetup Sunday 13 November 2022 midday to 2pm NZ time. The agenda and link to the meeting can be found here Ambrosia10 (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Year in New Zealand pagesEdit

Howdy, I noticed a few inconsistencies in the "Incumbent" section of your Year pages, concerning New Zealand's monarch. Would anyone object if I changed "Head of state" to "Monarch" & merely add next to it, the monarch's name? After all, you don't call prime minister "Head of government", in those pages. GoodDay (talk) 06:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I would object. Head of state is crystal clear, whereas Monarch, particularly in the New Zealand context, is not as it may also refer to the Māori monarch. Paora (talk) 07:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
To be clear, you mean pages like 2000 in New Zealand, where you would change “Head of state” to “Monarch” under § Regal and viceregal? That seems like a whole lot of effort for something that is at best equivalent in meaning. — HTGS (talk) 09:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes & I'm willing to take on that task, if given clearance to do so. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

FASTER (NZX)Edit

FASTER (NZX) has been proposed for moving to Fully Automated Screen Trading and Electronic Registration, which I don't agree with (whoever called it that in ordinary use?). However, I think the article is out of date and thus inaccurate, and lacks notability. So I am thinking of a counter-proposal to merge it into NZX, once the material has been updated/corrected. Anyone interested in working on the article to rescue it first, or just to update it? Nurg (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Just a note that "merge" is a reasonable vote in a deletion discussion. Schwede66 07:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Wellington Wikimedia meetup Saturday 26th of NovemberEdit

Reminder: There's an in person Wikipedia meetup tomorrow Saturday the 26th of November from 10am until Noon at the He Matapihi Molesworth Library at National Library, corner Molesworth and Aitken Streets, Wellington See the agenda for more details. Ambrosia10 (talk) 00:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Sandringham dairy robbery and stabbingEdit

Hi there, I have been working on a draft for the recent stabbing of a dairy worker during a robbery attempt in Sandringham, Auckland. This story has attracted significant media and political attention in New Zealand. I thought it would be good to write a Wikipedia article about it. Feel free to help me work on the draft article. Cheers. Andykatib (talk) 11:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)