Talk:Nelson Province

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the New Zealand politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nelson Province. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081016215440/http://www.nram.govt.nz/record.php?id=12658&parent=nramindexbyvolume&volume=Y to http://www.nram.govt.nz/record.php?id=12658&parent=nramindexbyvolume&volume=Y

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent IP edit

222.154.85.255 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

IP did a spot of wikifiddling, adding nonsense to Irredentism and a list of notable "Nelsonians" to Nelson, New Zealand, checking the list its not that bad but a couple have only a tangential connection to Nelson. I didn't delete the whole lot, only those with a tangential connection. He also changed the map on this historic article to a different one [1]. As it looks like wikifiddling I reverted him but the IP is edit warring them back. About to warn for 3RR but not going to indulge their edit war. Would appreciate other wikipedia editors checking this and reverting if they concur with my assessment. W C M_email 00:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not add both maps to the article? They are both relevant and correct. Schwede 66 01:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see, in which case my apologies, I did a quick look and possibly made a hasty decision following the addition of nonsense at Irredentism. W C M_email 01:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The edit to Irredentism reflected a concept being put forward by a pro-Nelsonia flag group as referenced to an external page. There needs to be a new page on Nelsonian people so that it can be clarified who is a Nelsonian. Residents of the Tasman District always have and still do identify themselves as Nelsonians not Motuekians or any other false demonyms. Meanwhile the map was changed to reflect the Nelson Province upon its constitution in 1853. Not wikifiddling as claimed by User talk:Wee Curry Monster. 222.154.85.255 (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FRINGE. W C M_email 01:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nelsonian may be a good idea to have. What's definitely a good idea is to have new articles for the Nelson Region, and maybe also the Tasman Region. That may go some way towards resolving some of the issues here. Why am I saying this? Well, Nelson (and also Tasman) is a unitary authority, but the city and the region are separate things. This scope issue may be one of the reasons why there are differences in opinion as to what is, and what isn't, "Nelson". Nelson Region is currently a redirect, so why not use that as the article name for the region article? It's less clear (to me, at least) whether there should be a separate Tasman Region article, given that the region and district are the same. But as for Nelson, we should definitely have a city article, and one for the region. Thoughts? Schwede 66 01:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There needs to be better clarification between Nelson the city and Nelson the geographical region. Tasman District may be a administrative district but it does not reflect what Nelsonians and others consider to be the Nelson region. Is it possible for the Nelson region page to reflect the geographical rather than the political region in a similar way to New England? There really is no need for a separate Tasman Region page and the Tasman District Council page could be merged with Tasman District.222.154.85.255 (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We should eventually have a series of region articles so that the political units created in the 1989 local government reform are all covered. To me, that is the most important series of articles to have complete. Whether there is then another article needed that covers a geographical region for Nelson is a different matter. Schwede 66 02:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]