Talk:Water in New Zealand

Future direction for this article ?

At present, this article Water in New Zealand is rated as High Importance, but is only at Start quality. There was nothing on the Talk page until this post. The article has had few contributions over the past few years, particularly given its High importance rating. I could try to add some value, but I want to clarify the direction first, if possible.

I note that there are many articles about Water and sanitation in various countries, as listed here: List of water supply and sanitation by country. I have recently been adding content to the article Water supply and sanitation in New Zealand, although this still needs a lot of work to bring it to a reasonable standard.

In many cases, a search for “Water in country” re-directs to the Water supply and sanitation in country page. There are few articles that are solely “Water in country”. In the List of water supply and sanitation by country, I note that there is also a smaller list of articles on the topic Water resources management by country. Here is a useful example of an article on that topic: Water resources management in Bolivia.

At present, the content of the article Water in New Zealand is an overview of water-related topics, without providing detail about any of them. The first section on Waters in New Zealand (Lakes, Rivers and Waterfalls) seems to add little value – it just links to the existing separate articles that could easily be discovered by a reader, and could be referenced from a See also: section. On a closely related matter, I note that although there is a category: Irrigation in New Zealand, there is no article on that topic, despite it being a significant matter for New Zealand, and featuring regularly in news items and projects.

My question is:

• Should the scope of the article remain as it is, or would it be better to align with (some) practice in articles for other countries, and refocus ((or move) this article to Water resources management in New Zealand and then remove more general content that is adequately covered in other articles ?

If that seemed appropriate, it might be easier to get progress on the contents of this article, with a somewhat narrower scope.Marshelec (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Just a note that I've now put this article onto my watchlist. I take it you would have notified other editors, too. Let's see what feedback you get. I'm from Christchurch and the two "important" water issues are chlorination (which, in my opinion, is a nuisance) and, to a lesser extent (as far as the broader public is concerned), increasing nitrate concentrations (which, in my view, is of top importance). I stood for regional government at the last local elections and have blogged about these issues. As such, some editors may think that I have a conflict of interest. It's thus better that I don't get (too) involved in editing (certainly no editorial edits), but I'd be more than happy to provide input via the talk page. And while I'm here, this article from a couple of days ago by Stuff's environment reporter Charlie Mitchell is rather insightful. Schwede66 23:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. However, I am still quite inexperienced. I am not sure how best to go about identifying other editors who might be willing to help - that is the suggestion I am looking for :)Marshelec (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Well, the best way to drum up some support is to post on the New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board. Schwede66 09:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I would love to help as well Me6481 (talk) 04:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

please notify me if there is anything I could do Me6481 (talk) 05:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)