Talk:Christchurch/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Coverage of wildlife

I have searched for sources about wildlife in Christchurch. Orana Park and Willowbank, and the Isaac Conservation Park / Ōtukaikino walkway could be mentioned as man-made wildlife parks or reserves, and wading birds are common in the estuary. However, apart from those, sources are somewhat limited. The city is a gateway for wildlife tourism to Akaroa and Kaikōura etc, but it is not clear that the main urban area of Christchurch is really notable for its wildlife. A possible exception could be the nesting of rare and endangered Black-billed gulls over three seasons in the ruins of an earthquake-damaged building. Ducks, geese, pigeons and other introduced birds don't seem worth much mention. Overall, I don't think wildlife warrants much coverage in the main Christchurch article, and some existing mentions could be trimmed. My view is that rare birds seen in a reserve or the estuary could be covered in articles about those places, and not in the main article. Here are some sources about rare birds in Christchurch, just in case others think it is worth including in the main Christchurch article: 2015 - [1], 2015 - [2], 2016 - [3], 2021 - [4], and [5], 2022- [6], 2023 - [7], 2023 - [8]. I will wait for feedback before trimming any existing content._Marshelec (talk) 09:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Whales? An unfortunate 30-ton sperm whale recently beached at South Brighton. Other less gargantuan species are not uncommon along the coastline. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

There is an effort to bring kororā back to the area with a protected colony reserve out at Godley Head. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

That would be a good addition to Godley Head. Similarly, some further content about Hector's dolphins could be added to Lyttelton Harbour. I don't think either of these warrant mention in the main article._Marshelec (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, there was some thinking at Christchurch City Council to make a corridor for birds that would connect Riccarton Bush with the Port Hills. Hence I designed Wainui Street (Riccarton Road to Peverell Street) with lots of room for planting native trees; that was some 20 years ago. They never carried on with that theme; south of Peverell Street, the road is as wide and treeless as ever. Not sure whether the council published anything about this (usually they do and their archive website goes back that far), but given that it didn't go anywhere, it's probably not worth bothering with. I thought the idea was quite neat, though. Schwede66 20:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Lede

I've rewritten two paragraphs in the lede and there is still somewhat long way to go until it looks "complete". Does anyone have any suggestions on anything else on what should be mentioned? I mainly focused on the history part, but we still need to summarize other immportant parts of the article. (see: WP:LEAD). I will be a lot more active in May and will be able to help improving and adding content. Your contributions are appreciated. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 05:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The progress on the lead is looking really good imo. It covers the most important stuff and is about the right size I think.

Could we use the article structure as a guide? Maybe one or two sentences from each section, pulling key notable facts for each subject? Looks like we have some of that already but we risk making it too long. We could probably trim a few sentences from the history if we need to. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 10:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, your welcome to help improve the content in the lede and elsewhere and get it to somewhere until it looks complete. I still hope to expand other parts of this article, adding refs and eventually getting this article up to GA status, hopefully by the end of this year. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

What is "modern history"?

We have a "modern history" section, but some of its contents are older history than what's in the "provincial growth" section, which makes it un-chronological. Is there a specific year period for "modern"? Is this a period described as "modern" by historians or have we just named it "modern"? If there is no theme in the section I think that it might be best to name it "20th century" or something along those lines, but if memory serves, I do think we've had the discussion of changing the name away from "20th century". 📊Panamitsu (talk) 00:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

We just named it "modern" I think. The period covered there is roughly from the end of WW1 onwards. If you have a better suggestion for the name please change it, I couldn't think of one.

Regarding the chronology, a strict chronology can be just a list of disconnected events, which is a bit dry to read. The original version of the "20th century" section was like that. A good historical narrative connects related events through time to tell a story, which is what I tried to do with the bits I wrote. I agree though, the crossing point from "European settlement" to "Modern history" is clunky at the moment.

FYI all of this might be moot because it seems we have consensus to trim the history in this article down quite a lot and spin it off to a dedicated History of Christchurch, New Zealand article. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 01:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I think modern history means anything after the mediaeval period. In the NZ context those terms don't fit well. People often use modern history to mean anything in living memory or worst, what was on yesterday's 6.00 news. I try to describe anything very recent as current affairs (eg 6 months or so because it is usually still happening or hasn't been put in context in people's minds. I'd call anything back 20-30 tears as contemporary history, avoiding the term modern. IMO, as I said earlier, I think we should not put anything in the history section after around 2015 or at a stretch 2019 to include the mosque shootings which have now sort of settled into the memory (there is nothing ongoing like court cases or gun legislation) Anything else could be in a separate section called current affairs. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:32, 1 May 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)

I've moved my sandbox into draft space: Draft:Amalgamations with Christchurch City. I've had a look for other "amalgamation" articles but there isn't really anything decent based on this category. That said, I noticed that we don't have an article covering Christchurch as a territorial local authority. Then again, the relevant template informs me that we don't have district articles for any of our cities, unlike for the true districts (i.e. those that aren't cities). I guess we can discuss whether we want the scope to be on amalgamations or on the district. Either way, it wouldn't be much different, I suppose. Schwede66 01:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Looking at other city articles with a dedicated history article, for example History of Manchester, some have a "Civic history" or "Governance" section. We could possibly merge your article into the new Draft:History of Christchurch, New Zealand article if that makes sense. Either way I'd like to include some of the info from the amalgamations article into the main history article, even if it is just a quick summary and a link to the amalgamations article. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 07:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd class it as "local government" as the city expanded largely independently of amalgamations, which in many cases happened a considerable time later.

I think the largest amalgamation was actually in 1989. Christchurch was a bit of an oddity as far as urban expansion went - instead of a large flock of "mistletoe boroughs" hanging on to it (as Dunedin and Invercargill had - a large proportion of which were absorbed around the time of the First World War), the urban area expanded into a circle of tiny counties which surrounded the city and survived until the abolition of counties - including suburbs as close to the city as Fendalton. Some parts of those counties did amalgamate with the city, but erratically and inconsistently - by 1989, Heathcote County had been so nibbled-at by the city that it was only a tiny area between Cashmere, Ferrymead and the summit road, smaller than the city ifself. Daveosaurus (talk) 10:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

A collaborative Wikiproject for Christchurch-related articles ?

I have posted a notice on the WikiProject New Zealand noticeboard seeking feedback about establishing a collaborative project for improving Christchurch-related articles. Please review and provide feedback at this link: Wikipedia:New_Zealand_Wikipedians'_notice_board#A_collaborative_Wikiproject_for_Christchurch-related_articles_?_Marshelec (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

History of Christchurch - splitting content out into a new article

The main article is currently at 9653 words of readable prose, and is at the point where some reduction or splitting of content is warranted, based on WP:SIZE. Looking at the article as it stands, I think the History section is in need of significant improvement, and splitting the content out as a new article and rewriting a shorter version as a summary could be one way of achieving improvements and also keeping the size of the main article under control. (Note: I am certain that there are further topics that are worth adding to the main article, so we need to look for opportunities to trim, to keep the size to a reasonable limit). There is a lot of content in the history section that in my view is too detailed for the main article. I have looked at other articles about major cities to see some examples of how history has been treated. There is usually a link to a more detailed separate article about the history of the city, and in many cases a separate timeline article. See: Manchester, Boston, Winnipeg, (all three are Featured Articles), Bangalore (GA rated), Auckland and Melbourne. We already have History of Canterbury, and this contains some recent history of Christchurch. My suggestion is to remove most Christchurch-specific content from that article and merge it into a new article specifically about the history of Christchurch, taking all the detailed content from the existing Christchurch article. It would then be necessary to write a summary for the main article. Feedback please. _Marshelec (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Those are some good examples, and we can use them as guidance in a way... (see: Lincoln, Nebraska (GA), the history section is massive and I would assume christchurch's does not need to be as big as theirs. But we need to summarize the immportant parts, likewise with the lede (which still needs improvement). I think we already did a relatively good job with the history, but needs trimming of excessive detail. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 07:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

There is a risk in copying what other articles do too closely. Each city is different, sometimes significantly so. This will require different subsections and different emphasis depending on the city. NZ cities will all have followed reasonably similar historical patterns so their articles will have a certain uniformity. However, articles on the history of Christchurch and the history of Petra should be quite different. Even less extreme examples, such as the histories of most European cities, will differ from colonial cities in Australasia. I think this means some thought is given on how best to structure the history of Christchurch rather than simply taking a template structure from somewhere else and building on that. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Then don't. We'll still include the significant Māori and European history alike. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Don't what? You have brought up another problem. If you cannot see the difference between 'the history of Christchurch' and the history of Maori and the history of Europeans who live in Christchurch then there is a grave risk that the resultant article will not be as good as it should be. If history isn't your area of expertise then please say so. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

It depends on what you define as "expertise", I am well informed about the history of Christchurch. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Yup, agreed, too long. A dedicated History of Christchurch article is a good idea.

I think I’m finished with my wee project to expand that section and give it a better narrative flow, so we’re probably at a good point to pull that out to its own article. A dedicated article is actually a great solution - I was struggling to avoid adding all that excessive detail that made it in there. There is so much to cover and so much more I could add, a dedicated article is a good place to dump all that.

Once we have a dedicated article for the subject we can probably boil that section of this article down to just “bookends”: Māori and European settlement, then major recent events. That is the best way to keep the section short imo. Readers are likely to be most interested in how things started and how they’re going now. Everything else they can go to the dedicated article. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 10:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with Cloventt. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

With thanks to User:Gadfium, there is now a helpful Section sizes template at the head of this talk page, and also in the articles Auckland, and Wellington. At present, the History section of the Christchurch article contains 36.3% of the total content. In comparison, the history section of Auckland contains 10.4% of the total of that article, and the history section of Wellington contains 7%. If a new separate article on the History of Christchurch is created, I suggest aiming for the content of the summary history section in this article to be between a quarter and one third of the present. This would be in the range 20 to 28 kbytes._Marshelec (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the numbers there are wikitext bytes, rather than word count. So those numbers would include the inline citations. That section is much more heavily sourced than other parts of the article which would inflate the byte count.

I've been trying to find a decent tool for analysing word count per-section and per-paragraph, and I haven't found anything I can get to work. I'm starting to think I should write something to do it, or maybe volunteer to expand the functionality of the built-in prosesize mediawiki plugin. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Current stats in words are:

1. top: 569
2. Toponymy: 230
3. History: 3369 (35%)
4. Geography: 1241
5. Demographics: 889
6. Economy: 1199
7. Government: 269
8. Culture and entertainment: 1354
9. Sport: 835
10. Eduction: 159
11. Transport: 745
12. Utilities: 535

So I was wrong, looks like wikitext is a good proxy for word size. We should try and get History down to about 1000 words I think. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

1500 words, in my opinion. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 22:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks likewise, and I was analyzing this article today and most sections could get better refs or expanding content. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 22:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

There is a lot of good improvement already IMO. However, before this article goes further off course and creates problems for future editors, I suggest creating at least two further sub-sections: 'Maori settlement in the area before 1850' and 'post-2015 events of interest', or words to that effect. These new sections are not about the history of Christchurch, but information about them is being squeezed into that history section. That would solve the problem of eager editors wanting to put this week's media headline into the history article thus filling it with current events and trivia, and would also allow the macronauts to do what makes them feel good. It will also deal, to a certain extent, with the gross breach of the obligation to create an article with the correct weighting. If that is not done we will end up with something of the level of a Year 9 essay rather than an encyclopedic article no lower that Y13 standard. Alexeyevitch, you can be as well read as you like about Christchurch history but knowing facts and dates does not mean you understand how to report its history. In a similar vein, you first have to see what the sources say and from that starting point you create an article; you don't start with an article structured in your mind and then go looking for sources to support your predetermined structure. On a separate issue, I suggest using 'governance' rather than 'government' as a sub-title. That would better describe certain broader issues specific to Christchurch such as water chlorination. 'Housing' might warrant a sub-section too. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

We already have a "Pre-European settlement" second-level heading under the top-level "History" heading, which is roughly equivalent to your suggestion of "Maori settlement in the area before 1850". Do you mean we should make these topics their own top-level headings rather than including them as part of the "History" section? If so I disagree.

I'm really uncertain what you mean by "These sections are not about the history of Christchurch". Pre-European settlement and recent events are absolutely part of the history of Christchurch. That is the appropriate place to include them.

I agree with your suggestion of "Governance" over "Government". David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 00:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Cloventt. Yes, I meant taking the pre-settlement subsection out of the history section and using it to start a new section. That Maori stuff has got almost nothing to do with Christchurch. Further suggestions are to add a subsection on 'Preparations for the settlement'. That would be about the Canterbury Assoc and the advanced team who came out to prepare for the first settlers. There, and IMO only there, is where mention can be made of local Maori because land was bought from them by the association. Additionally, there must be inclusion of the Deans family somewhere. Either a separate subsection or possibly in the preparation subsection because there was some interaction between Godley and the Deans family. The Deanses also bought land from the local Maori and used Maori names so some reference to the local Moari might fit in there too. I prefer a separate subsection for the Deans Family because they were independent from the association. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

If there is already content in the article that looks good, then that's good. We still have a long way to go before this is article is ready for a GAN, but I think we are further ahead then the Wellington article. I support having a new article called "History of Christchurch" that will give an extensive overview of its history, but we still need to do a good job summarizing content in this article. And, we don't write encyclopedia articles in Y13, which is entirely irrelevant to Wikipedia itself, and I'm not guaranteeing you with what I said there is necessarily "true", because I don't even go there nor do I even care about it. Let's focus on building this encyclopedia collectively, with a "particular" interest in New Zealand articles. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 01:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I have begun the process of splitting out to a dedicated page here: Draft:History of Christchurch, New Zealand. Feedback and support to get the article published is appreciated. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 04:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I suggest the new page be simply History of Christchurch to match this article. It can have a hatnote to History of Christchurch, Dorset. It would be polite to post on the talk page of that article to see if anyone objects to overwriting the current disambiguation page.-Gadfium (talk) 05:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I've asked on the relevant talk page, but personally I think that History of Christchurch, New Zealand is a more specific title and matches the status-quo of the current redirect. I am pretty neutral on this issue. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 08:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The draft article looks great, this has potential to be a GA. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 06:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done, from the AfC reviewer who accepted the draft, to notify anyone who wants to proceed with the WP:SPLIT cleanup. Cheers, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 19:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The articles have now been split (see History of Christchurch, New Zealand), and I've drastically reduced the length of the history section in this article. It is currently around 650 words, so there is scope to at least double it.

I've gone for early settlement and recent events as per other discussions on this talk page. If anyone is keen to expand it a bit please feel welcome. I've tried to cover the subjects in this summary section with due weight. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 06:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Remaining work to get over the line to GA

What work is left to get this article ready for a GA review? I have made contributions and so don't feel comfortable being a GA reviewer, but I could perhaps do a "dry run" review to identify problems? David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 22:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to be negative but the history section has been worse than decimated. Only 20% of what's left of it is is about the history of Christchurch, and that 20% needs further edits. Please do not use museum primary evidence as a source. The section now has two subsections, one about the land use before the history of Christchurch and the other about current affairs. I suggest putting back what was there a month ago and starting again. Far from being at GA status, what is there now is at starter level. Moving stuff to a separate 'history of Christchurch' article does mean you can leave the history subsection in the Chch article bare. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

You may have missed the 'History of Christchurch - splitting content out into a new article' discussion above where it was decided to reduce the amount of content in the history section and move it to a dedicated article.

Only 20% of what's left of it is about the history of Christchurch [...] The section now has two subsections, one about the land use before the history of Christchurch and the other about current affairs. - as I think I have mentioned before, the land before and during the establishment of the European city is absolutely a relevant part of the history of the city. I think you are the only person to express a differing opinion on that so far. When exactly do you consider the history of Christchurch to begin? David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 23:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

No, I did not miss that discussion, or rather the discussion to reduce the section size, but I did not follow it regularly. I assumed it would be a smaller version of what was there, with some improvements. As I said, that does not mean the remnant text can be a pile of rubble - it means the size of the text is reduced, all in proportion and with correct weighting. Any person reading what is there now would have zero knowledge of the history of Christchurch - zero. Please don't use primary evidence as a source: that is a fundamental part of wikipedia. That stuff should only be used if there are no proper RSSs available (which in this case there are, plenty) or for very obvious matters of fact, such as the time of an earthquake, or the current mayor. Land before chc existed is relevant? How, in what way? Please, tell us, and remember, we don't just want your opinion, or the opinion of a primary source, we need RSSs. I think you mean I'm the only one who wants to follow WP rules and guidelines, so let's be clear about that - consensus doesn't mean its right. If there is going to be a short subsection on the history of chc that takes up three to four paragraphs, that is easy to do but you first need a balanced structure in mind in order to apply the correct weighting, otherwise you end up with a totally distorted disproportionate and non-informative chunk of words. It doesn't help if it is taken from a primary source. RSSs say chc began in 1850. There was some relevant detail about its beginning, back to around 1840 and an even smaller amount of relevant detail from earlier still. Remember, before the city was founded there was nothing there, nothing. A Maori walking track does not constitute settlement; a speculative seasonal gathering of a few Maori around the cliffs south of the estuary is not a proper settlement and even if it was it is far away from the city that was established in 1850. To say otherwise is judging the past from the position of the present. To be more positive, I suggest the first step should be to create an overall framework to show the desired structure and weighting. From there some detail can be inserted which will be easier to do without to go off course or getting bogged down in detail, which is what has happened now. To end up with three or four paragraphs it will mean some important detail will have to be only one or two sentences, which will require some thought to the overall writing style to make sure the resultant text flows properly and isn't a disjointed collection of facts. If you want, I can suggest a framework here but it might not be till later today. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, please do suggest your preferred framework. I am keen to collaborate with you on this subject. Further up it was mentioned we should aim for about 1500 words.

Remember, before the city was founded there was nothing there, nothing. This is incorrect. As has been discussed elsewhere, the area was an important mahinga kai and did in fact have semi-permanent settlements along the banks of the river attached to those activities. The history of Māori customary use of this area is an important fact to mention in a complete history of the city. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 02:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Christchurch has notable Māori history, there was a Māori pā in South New Brighton, hāngī pits and wharenui were plentiful in the eastern suburbs before they were burned down/destroyed by European colonizers, (not the western suburbs). It would be silly not to mention this IMO. (Note: that not many online sources mention this, it's mostly offline sources.) Alexeyevitch^(talk) 02:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

On the topic of the History section: I have removed the “Recent events” subtitle, as I think sections should be either on broad historical periods or trends, or on specific events. As is, it does feels like there is a big chunk of time missing between the settlement periods and the major tragedies of the present era. Maybe this would be something more productive to focus on, Roger 8 Roger? At least it would feel more positive than debating the inclusion of the Māori settlement era (which personally, I think is an important period to cover in this article). — HTGS (talk) 07:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Very important to cover the Māori settlement in the area, I agree with Roger more detail should be covered. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 09:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

On reflection I think it will be impossible to write a short complete history in 3 to 4 paragraphs. Even if it were, it would be quickly messed up by people tampering with it. However, how about a list structure? A dozen or so dates of key events followed by a sentence to explain them. That would be easier to handle I think. What happened before 1840-1850 in the area is not chc, whether it is volcanic activity, maori collecting eggs or migrating birds flying overhead. It is not Christchurch in any way. It is a description of the area on which Christchurch was established. The only way that detail is relevant to the history of chc is if it had a direct bearing on the establishment of the city in 1850. That applies to the Deans farm, the dealings with the French at Akaroa, land purchase from maori (not what they had for dinner on south shore beach - that stuff can go into a separate section if it is deemed notable and relevant enough). Some cities develop over time from a small initial settlement, so some early detail is relevant. The Roman settlement on the Thames is relevant to the history of London because it is when the city started. Christchurch had no earlier settlement to carry on with. Even if there were some maori roaming around the wider area there was no pa/village on the planned site - chc started from scratch. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

With a similar viewpoint to Roger 8 Roger, I'll make some suggestions on what to improve. I am not familiar with the history of Christchurch, or even Christchurch itself, which I think is useful for peer review.

In The British settlement section I am a bit confused about why the farm Riccarton is mentioned. Riccarton appears throughout the article, so it may be due for inclusion, but as a reader I don't know why it's there. With that being said, I also think that "Their farm took over the abandoned holdings of a failed pioneer farm" is overly detailed, but you see, I don't know.

After the British settlement section there is a big jump and we're suddenly in 2011. What happened between then? Now of course I don't know much about Christchurch but I think there should be some text about how the city was built, industrialisation, etc. Given the fame of the Ballantyne's fire I wonder if that could have a sentence, but I am on the fence on whether that is excessive.

I'm also wondering if the Port Hills fires section could be removed or shortened as it doesn't appear to have impacted Christchurch that much, despite the amount of land burnt. ―Panamitsu (talk) 11:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the fires seem to be a bit of a recency bias, but I wonder if that’s not a bad thing? Readers will expect to learn something about the “history” (implied older), but also to see events they feel are significant. Maybe we see how they sit after everything else is done, or re-assess in a year or two. — HTGS (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm a local here, naturally I would keep an eye on how the article and talk page is doing.

I said this before, there was notable Māori settlement called Puāri in central Christchurch and Ōtautahi near the fire station. This article covers all of chc not just the central city, thus, the Māori pā in South New Brighton is relevant here... Cashmere irrelevant here, no notable Māori settlement in Cashmere, ok. (Note: this isn't published in online mainstream media which doesn't make it irrelevant, there are many great book sources in the CCC libraries.)

I would be more than happy to improve content relating to pre-European colonization of the area.

There needs to be more context on industrialization and the 20th century stuff. In fact, the entire history section could see substantial improvement.

Maybe restore some content deleted? Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the best solution is for an editor (not me) to write a summary of the History of Christchurch article and pick out the narrative points they think matter the most. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 18:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@user:Panamitsu I agree about the Ballantynes fire and the Port Hills fires. This is currentism - "not important because I don't remember it". The Deans were important because they were the first European family to settle in Canterbury and because they'd bought land from local Maori. They were therefore a bit of a problem for the Canterbury Assoc. that wanted to set up from scratch a model English city. It didn't help that the Deans were Presbyterian Scots, their farm next to the soon-to-be built Anglican city - Hagley Park kept them conveniently apart. But the Deans are regarded as first Europeans of the city, with Jane Dean who lived for decades after 1850 treated as the city's matriarch. I've said my bit about these Maori pa - please show us how they were relevant to the establishment of Christchurch, otherwise they are not relevant. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

It would not be relevant if the article was about the establishment of Christchurch, but it's not... Māori pā and settlements relevant here - it will recognize the indigenous settlers here, the European settlers and industrialization should also be mentioned. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Alexeyevitch, pls look at wp:synth. That is what I mean by the requirement for a direct connection. You are connecting (synthesing) two unconnected facts and pretending there is a direct link between them. That is called wp:original research. Your excuse is that this is about Christchurch, not the establishment of Christchurch, but that makes no difference. It's actually about the history of Christchurch anyway. Christchurch was started and still exists irrespective of the Maori pa and walking routes. You are joining two separate topics and trying to create a direct connection between them. An example of a direct connection is Akaroa. That town existed before the British took over-the current town is an extension of the French settlement (streets are the same layout and names as the French started them for example). The "purchase" of land from Maori in Canterbury by the Canterbury Assoc would be a direct link, but that is a relatively minor point of detail that warrants half a sentence, not a whole paragraph of subsection. If you want to put into wikipedia more detailed information about Maori in the region then pls do it somewhere else, such as in a specific article. You can then add that to the "See also" section on this page, a section specifically for articles with a loose, indirect, connection to this article. Finally, please try not to consider anything you hear of read in the media, the Waitangi Tribunal or government administrative entities which says or implies Maori and non-Maori having a direct partnership as if they are one but but also separate. Look at the facts as determined by proper independent reliable secondary sources, viewed in context with correct weighting. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I've made my point already but... Māori detail should be mentioned. There are "proper independent reliable secondary sources" about Māori in the CCC library, online I have had bad results (even from ProQuest), and from low-quality sources (see WP:OFFLINE). Alexeyevitch^(talk) 23:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

In my view, the indigenous occupation and use of the area of Christchurch before and during European settlement is relevant to the city. A reader of this article would expect there to be some coverage of that subject. I think you are alone in your view that we should exclude information about the area prior to 1850. I do not think it is productive to continue litigating that point. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 23:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Boundaries of Christchurch

In the lede and under Geography, Christchurch is described as being "bounded by the Banks Peninsula". That is confusing and wrong, I believe. The Banks Peninsula is part of Christchurch and it is bounded on all sides by the Pacific Ocean, or am I missing something here?  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

External link description

There is a tourist guidebook about Christchurch in the external link section that has been described on the link, correctly, informatively and unambiguously to the vast majority of readers, as 'Christchurch, Canterbury'. That description has recently been changed to something far less informative, adding a Maori name. To clarify - the correct name to use in the description of the linked website is the commonly used English name for what the linked site is about; the title of the guidebook and any official name are not necessarily the names to use - WP rules are quite clear about that. The guidebook is about Christchurch, the name used throughout the booklet. If CCC decides to use a mixed name for the guidebook's title - for legal or policy reasons - then that is pointedly contrary to common usage and has no bearing on WP. The guidebook's mixed title does not represent an NZGB official name anyway, making the use of it in a WP link even more contrary to common usage. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it'd be better to just change the text to the domain name, "ChristchurchNZ.com" as "Ōtautahi Christchurch" is really just the name of the place. The name of the organisation also appears to be "ChristchurchNZ".[9] ―Panamitsu (talk) 03:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Kia ora Roger, are you referring to my revert of your revert [10]? It's the website for ChristchurchNZ, which is the Christchurch City Council economic development agency. They're responsible for promoting Christchurch to tourists/investors. Their website features a prominent heading saying "Ōtautahi Christchurch", so I interpreted that as the correct title of their website.

I agree with Panamitsu that we could use the name of the org, which is ChristchurchNZ. The "Ōtautahi Christchurch" name seems to be part of an ongoing rebrand. [1] David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 03:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, 'Ōtautahi Christchurch' is appopriate here. The name of the organization itself might differ. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 04:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

We must be very clear. The name of the place in English is Christchurch. If anyone questions that we can ignore them much as we would ignore someone arguing that the world is flat. We don't even have the usual argument to fall back on that the official name is "Ōtautahi Christchurch" so we should use it. The External link text describes what is in the link isn't there to repeat the link's title or the name of the link's author (unless that is relevant to describing what the text is about). To use 'ChristchurchNZ' would be unnecessary and not informative. The reason the Maori name is there is twofold: first, it's to attract the attention of the tourist (who will probably be in Christchurch when reading it, making confusion less likely; second, because they publishers (ultimately CCC) are bound in law to promote the Maori language and this is the way they have chosen to do it - it's simple and effective. But this is Wikipedia and we are not constrained by either of those reasons - we are in fact encouraged not to get involved in such business and political considerations. Please consider that all this artificial use of non-English names is being undone by this government. How far that will go and if it will again be changed later, only time will tell, but it illustrates well why WP editors should avoid getting involved in the ever changing tide of political sentiment. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

How exactly is "Christchurch and Canterbury" more informative than "ChristchurchNZ.com" if the latter is the name of the website/organisaion and the former is a name you've made up? "Christchurch and Canterbury" has the same issue with the Maori name, which is that it is just the name of the place, and that is uninformative. ―Panamitsu (talk) 06:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Stop needed

@user:Alexeyevitch This might be the best place to comment. I thought it better to add it hear than your talk page. I accept it is being done in good faith but most of you edits to Christchurch suburbs are doing more harm than good. You are often using low quality inappropriate sources; not using those sources properly; adding a lot of original research; and often writing nonsense English that makes no sense. Will you please stop doing it because you are making the articles worse. It is better to have an empty article than one filled with stuff that is wrong or inappropriate. I'm not talking about the odd sentence or two, but whole sections. The latest one is a 'history' section of Opawa that is full of stuff that has nothing to do with Opawa. I respectfully suggest you simply add your sources to a section called sources (and learn how to do it), preferably sources that can easily be accessed online by others and leave it at that. Others can then use them if needed. It takes time to add (properly) relevant detail to an article. You have to have a general grasp of what the topic is about to make sure what you add is relevant and has the correct weighting. That requires at least some reading of many sources if you don't already know anything about the topic. It also sometimes means not even starting to edit a page because you don't have that background knowledge. How many editors have the depth of knowledge to make a positive contribution to an article about quantum mechanics, for example? Very few I suggest, meaning any contribution they make is likely to do more harm than good. So, please, stop you widespread additions, which I think amount to well-intentioned disruptive edits. Add your sources to a specific list - that alone will take time. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it might be a good time for a some people to read the Five pillars of the encyclopedia. Many NZ editors would realize that chch topics are my area interest.

Wikipedia is editable by anyone, regardless if you are 9y/o or 90y/o or if you are an expert in a paticular area of interest or not. As long if your contributions are postive then it's good.

I agree what David (Cloventt) stated a few weeks ago: "the indigenous occupation and use of the area of Christchurch before and during European settlement is relevant to the city. A reader of this article would expect there to be some coverage of that subject." (This applies to the main Christchurch article and its subrubs/areas, incl Southshore and Opawa) I noted that this content is typically covered in offline sources, Ngāi Tahu atlas is a decent directory for these sources (although the website itself is sometimes prone to inaccuracies).

I think some of the sources will be available online although some certainly would not (e.g Local Lives: A History of Addington or The Estuary Where Our Rivers Meet the Sea Christchurch's Avon-Heathcote Estuary and Brooklands Lagoon) and see WP:OFFLINE, "Don't let the fact that a printed book or journal is not available online scare you away from using them as a source in Wikipedia". I have been more cautious about my editing (e.g checking for typos) and fact-checking before I click on the "publish changes" button, you also don't need to cite info further in the article if it has already been cited. Most local history books are more reliable then some NZ mainstream media (which has a left-leaning political bias).

Regards. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

One approach, that I and others might well adopt, is simply to wipe away a whole section you have added rather than spend ages trying to sort it out. Wikipedia allowing anyone to edit does not mean anyone can do whatever they want to. There is also an obligation to edit to a reasonably competent encyclopedic standard. If you can't do that then do not edit. See my 'quantum mechanics' analogy above. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Plz stop this behavior. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 22:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I just had a quick read of the history of Opawa section and I think it looks alright.

Roger, as discussed previously, you appear to be alone in your belief that the history of Māori occupation and use of the land in the area of Christchurch is somehow irrelevant to the history of Christchurch.

Please do not ask other editors to stop editing when they are doing so in good faith. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 03:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I have never said the history of Maori in the area pre-1850 was irrelevant. What I have said is there was no Maori settlement on the site of the then Christchurch (today's inner city). Settlement and occupation are not synonymous and there was not even occupation beyond caves near Sumner or the odd fishing or eating spots along the coast or rivers. There certainly was no settlement. Somewhere like Kaiapoi and the pa is different because that was closer to a settlement, but Kaiapoi is not Christchurch. Also, Brighton and Redcliffs should not be treated as being in Christchurch - they were a long way out for decades after 1850 so treating them as part of Christchurch is anachronistic. Despite the whole SI being treated as unoccupied in the declaration of sovereignty, there was in fact acknowledgement of Maori who were there, as evidenced by actively getting them to sign the treaty in 1840-41 and by the various land purchases pre-1850. That is about as close a connection I can find between Maori and the European settlement of Canterbury in 1850. IMO, mention of Maori in this article should mention that and nothing else - a couple of sentences in the first paragraph). It certainly should not ramble on about Kaiapoi, eels or a NI iwi invasion of the SI. That all belongs in a separate article. Any ignorant observer reading that history of Christchurch section would be led to believe there was a Maori settlement pre-1850 that was taken over and developed by Europeans post-1850. That is a complete fallacy. It might not suit the current political mood but it is nevertheless true. Please look at the article source used to 'confirm' Maori settlement of the Christchurch land. The word 'settlement' is used about 20 times and always in relation to Maori settlement f New Zealand in the 14thC. or settlement (or lack of it) of the SI. The word is there correctly used in a very broad general sense, not about a specific settlement anywhere and certainly not on the Christchurch site.

Being done in good faith does not excuse the addition of text that causes so much later 'correction' - which could be seen as disruptive. As you saw earlier, even that IP on the Southshore article mentioned it. I asked the editor to stop adding large chunks of text that still needed a lot of work, and to type off line first. That is a perfectly acceptable request. I was of course aware the additions had been made in good faith which did not make my comments any easier to write. And, I don't think consensus means we can ignore verifiable facts. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

You're wrong about that there was no settlement in the inner (central) city. (e.g Puāri and Ōtautahi) near the fire station and Victoria Square.

Cathedral Square and a part of Kilmore Street were burial sites. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 22:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you supply a source/link? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

ok, (see map of Christchurch city center in this PDF) there are also book sources available in the library. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 22:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

[11] I found this too which is not at all ideal. CCC library stuff is primary. Your source is primary, it is one person's legal submission/evidence. From what I can see without wasting much time reading in depth, these places near the fire station were either abandoned, intermittently used and often nowhere near Christchurch. More relevant they are deemed sites of cultural significance (again, please read the sources carefully). A site of cultural significance is not a settlement. As I said earlier, settlement means something, certainly in international law, and these places were not settlements. At best they were places occupied by a few Maori at various times. I suggest you try to remove from your thinking anything you have heard or read about the importance of involving Maori as 'partners' in NZ society, especially from the CCC, and look at proper independent secondary sources. and read them carefully. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

It is still appropriate here, there are book sources available in Tūranga about Christchurch Māori. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 23:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by “CCC library stuff is primary.”? The link you provided has a list of sources at the bottom, which would make it secondary. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 05:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

This user has also been replacing New Zealand spellings with American ones, for example here, here and here.

Because this user does not like his English being corrected, I suggest that he write on a user page until he has copyedited them. I am sure many users are willing to help with this. After I fix his mistakes, editing articles relating to the Kapiti Coast and Paraparaumu, or leaving messages on my talk page is quite simply an odd response.

If this user has a medical condition that causes him to generate word salad for short periods of time (eg here, here), then I suggest that he try pausing his edits until it has finished affecting him, if he can notice when it is happening. ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@cloventt Information in WP is (hopefully) backed by sources. That doesn't make it a proper secondary source. Please note the need for Independent- reliable- secondary. The detail from libraries is self published, making it not independent. The libraries are council run meaning they are bound to promote Mauri language and culture (I am not saying that is right or wrong, just that it isn't properly independent). If a reputable author writes something for a library of te papa, such as Claudia Orange, we can use it because she is an established expert in the field, even though it has not been independently published - it is an exception where a primary source is allowed by WP. But most of what we see on library sites is not written by established well published experts. A huge amount of detail in WP is not backed by secondary sources. IMO more that half the detail referenced to newspapers is primary - opinion pieces or quoting someone's opinion. If these library pages of information are to be used, we should ideally go direct to the sources they use mentioned at the bottom of the page and use them as our secondary sources. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

'Lore and History of the South Island Maori' and 'Maori Place-names of Canterbury' books are reliable - and better than purely using online NZ sources for this content. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

STOP STOP

Continuing from but different to the above section. The Addington article was reasonably okay. There had been some gradual improvements over the last couple of years, but much of that has been undone by yet more edits by user:Alexeyevitch which all have to be undone changed or repaired. From recent discussions it appears that he is being encouraged and helped by experienced editors to get involved by working on Christchurch suburbs. It should now be clear that he doesn't have the ability to make improvements. This is an open access encyclopedia for anyone to view but it is not a Year 10 note book to fill up with draft notes and scribble, but that is what is happening. If you have access to Alexeyevitch and are encouraging his edits then please stop. Get him to write drafts and then go over them with him first - all off line. Also, please remember that although anyone can edit, not everyone is capable of editing. A certain level of ability is necessary and assumed. If he wants to get involved, that is good. I suggest you help him to make some automatic technical edits, like changing short descriptions to 'none'. Alexeyvitch, I've asked you to stop or slow down before but you don't, possibly encouraged by others to keep going. If you keep making these mass edits full of mistakes I, and hopefully others, will treat it as disruptive. I have no doubt you are acting in good faith, but remember that disruptive edits can still be made in good faith. This post is mainly directed at those who are helping you in the real world. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Several things:

1. This is not the appropriate place for discussing that article.
2. I have had a look at the article and it looks to have been generally improved by their edits. I have checked every one of their recent contributions there and it looks like they have contributed very productively to the article. I can’t see anything concerning enough to warrant this reaction from you.
3. If you have specific criticisms, list them on the relevant talk page. Otherwise your complaints are just “I don’t like it” with no way to respond to them. Constructive criticism please.
4. Your messages to this user are so critical and dismissive of their good faith editing that you are crossing the threshold of civility from my perspective.

David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 08:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with Cloventt - I am not sure why is this here? I don't want to get too invovled here but I need to make an important point.

1. It is discouraged to discourage other fellow editors to stop editing/editing topics of interest (or even Wikimedia projects in general)

2. Also this comment: "If you keep making these mass edits full of mistakes I, and hopefully others, will treat it as disruptive" I think this is bad-faith. I don't want to pressurize you but I think this comment was a bit harsh.

3. Everyone makes mistakes, learn from them. Don't make the same misakes again.

4. I don't want to be hubris on my part, but I recently realized of the importance of civility... this might be a good read for Roger. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 09:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

No, not being uncivil, so please do not go down that path. I have repeatedly told him to slow down and draft off line first but it is not happening, and it appears that others are encouraging him to do his practice runs online. This is in fact the best place to comment because my remarks are about Christchurch suburbs and it follows directly from the above post - Addington is just the latest example. Since the beginning of May, he has made about eleven edits of over 6,000 letters. All have been removed or changed, including a series of changes today made by user:Goldenbaybutcher. I replaced the lead which was fluff. So, no, his edits have not been an improvement, they have in fact caused others to spend time sorting them out. There is only so much someone can say 'tactfully' before having to be more direct. I regret that blunt talk upsets you so much but giving and taking direct criticism and suggestions that might appear curt to some is all part of Wikipedia editing. Open debate improves Wikipedia and should be encouraged. I assumed you knew that. Now, back to the point, which is not primarily about this editor: it is about others who, I assume, are encouraging him to by-pass the necessary off-line drafting or online use of his wp:sandbox, which is what its's for. Unfortunately, your edit above hasn't led me to change my view about that. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@Alexetevitch. I am not discouraging you from editing; I am encouraging you to learn how to edit properly by practising and drafting offline first. Your comment is a good example of what I mean - you do not understand what I have been saying and as a result you accuse me falsely of discouraging you. I then have to spend two minutes refuting your accusation, two minutes I could be spending elsewhere doing something else. If you still don't understand why my remarks are in fact trying to help you contribute then I cannot do much more I'm afraid. Here's another suggestion, that would be easier given to you in person in front of a screen: Draft a sentence or two offline. Then look at every single word to see if it supported by a source or is just something you have made up in your mind without realising it. So when you write (for example) "There are many notable buildings in Opawa", is that true? Many doesn't mean one or two, or even three or four, it means many. So, unless the source says there are many, or the source gives examples of at least seven or eight, then don't use the word many. Also consider that between a couple and many comes the word several, which would be better to use than half a dozen. There is a staggered line of adjectives to describe more than one: a couple, some, a few, half a dozen, several, many, very many, numerous, countless. They all change the meaning of a sentence in which they are used in different ways, so handle them with care. Best to use the word in the source and not make one up. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

A further point in answer to my disruptive remark - it isn't a matter of your making mistakes, which we all do. You are adding a sentence or two and then rearranging it or changing the odd word or adding a comma or moving it to another section. That is what should be done off line by working on an initial draft. You could then get someone else to check your final draft to suggest any further changes. By not doing that you are creating clutter and errors online that leads to frustration and wasted time by others. That is what I mean by being disruptive, not the occasional typo. I regret it if you feel these remarks are also an unwarranted criticism. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello, who would be the one willing to review such drafts for chch suburbs? if it's no one than this plan won't work. They should also provide suggestions to the prose.

There are 5 heritage-listed places in Opawa (St. Marks church does not appear to be a heritage-listed building, it is a prominent landmark in the suburb though.)

• 188 Richardson Terrace
• 44 Opawa Road
• 9 Ford Road
• 41 Opawa Road
• 22 Cholmondeley Avenue

I saw your edit summary on Woolston and I panicked for a bit because it was out of the blue. I thought the statement was to discourage/STOP me from editing chch articles. I was wrong... it also depends if there will be the "reviewer" for the drafts. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Having your edits changed is not a reason to stop editing. It is just part of the normal collaborative process of editing. Comparing the state of the article from last week to now, it has obviously improved. A key part of that improvement is this user jumping in and making edits. Please do not discourage editors from editing in good faith. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 12:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, Opawa's a big place, it's a suburb that stretches out without obvious boundaries and has different parts to it, rich and poor. You could also write a bit on Hanson park and the loop. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 12:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Writing style

Not really a super fan of Strunk but contains some useful principles to consider when writing.

- Make the paragraph the unit of composition: one paragraph to each topic

- As a rule, begin each paragraph with a topic sentence; end it in conformity with the beginning

- Use the active voice

- Put statements in positive form

- Use definite, specific, concrete language

- Omit needless words

- Avoid a succession of loose sentences

- Express co-ordinate ideas in similar form

- Keep related words together

- In summaries, keep to one tense

There's no point in writing these articles if they make no sense. There are several suburb articles which read like a stream of consciousness. Be specific, active, omit needless words. Keep it plain - the article should be able to be understood the first time it is read. If something is a house, it is a house. Not a building, not a homestead, not an opulent house - it's a house. If there is a new idea in a sentence that is probably a good time to use a full stop, and start the next sentence. One idea, one sentence.

I'm not tagging anyone in here because, and I cannot emphasise this enough, I am not interested in engaging with the petty behaviour I see here.

Write better. Goldenbaybutcher (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Awesome advice! David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 02:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Split out sports venues into a list article ?

Here is another suggestion for tidying up this article. How about we split off the list of sports venues into a separate list article ?. The list could then be expanded. As just one example, all golf courses could be listed. The benefit would be improving the readability of the main article by removing a tedious list, and allowing expansion of the list in a separate article for any readers who are particularly interested. Looking at some highly rated articles about cities, it is not common for them to include long lists like this. I would be willing to take the initial lead on this, if there is some support. Another option would be to create a new article Sport in Christchurch, and relocate most sports-related content there. Comments please._Marshelec (talk) 03:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the article should look similar (and better) than the Sport in Sydney article. The Commonwealth Games is a noted event in Christchurch's history. And soon, an international sports venue centered in the central city. I will add content to the article when it exists. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 05:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Here is a suggestion for a table that could go into a new article Sport in Christchurch. I propose that the table of teams could be followed by a table of sports venues. Once the proposed new article is in place and has sufficient initial content, it would then be possible to cut back the existing content in this article significantly, and write it mostly in prose, rather than list form. Comments please, before I go any further. Any suggestions for different/new columns etc ? Is a new article worthwhile ?:

Teams in national competitions

Sport	Gender	Team/Association	Established	National competition	Home venue	Notes
Rugby Union	Mens	Crusaders	1996	Super Rugby	Rugby League Park (known as Apollo Projects Stadium)
Rugby Union	Mens	Canterbury Rugby Football Union	1879	National Provincial Championship	Under construction: Te Kaha (also known as Canterbury Multi-Use Arena)
Cricket	Mens	Canterbury Kings	1877	Super Smash	Hagley Oval
Cricket	Womens	Canterbury Magicians	1932	Super Smash	Hagley Oval

Marshelec (talk) 05:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, the table looks good. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 05:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I am continuing to work on development of a new article for Sport in Christchurch, and will publish this as a draft when it is more advanced. In the meantime, I have noticed that there is no article for the major sports complex at Ngā Puna Wai, although it is mentioned here:Wigram#Parks,_sports_and_recreation. Is anyone willing to create a stub article for Ngā Puna Wai ?? Marshelec (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I am willing to incorporate that content inside the Sport in Christchurch article.

At present time, I don't really create articles so I may not be a qualified person to do this. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 22:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the need for a separate article. There aren't that many sporting venues which have Wiki articles. Ok to list in a table as discussed above. Ajf773 (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)