Jump to content

Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33→Archive 35

Wikimedia User Group of Aotearoa New Zealand Meetup

The first online meetup for the year will be held Sunday January 9th at Noon NZST. The following link gives the agenda and Jitsi link to join the virtual meeting. All editors working on New Zealand content are very welcome. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Aotearoa_New_Zealand_Online/20. - Ambrosia10 (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I've started a copyright query related to the New Zealand Police at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Is_this_copyright_disclaimer_sufficient?. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Michael Woodruff for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

First Wellington Wikipedia Meetup happening virtually

The #Wellington #Wikipedia meetup, the first of the year 2022, will be held virtually tomorrow Saturday the 22nd of January at 10am NZST. Please join us! More information and the link to join can be found here Ambrosia10 (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section has an RFC

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 03:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

COI editing by parliamentary services staff

Hi all, I've just blocked the IP 202.22.30.101 for edit warring. This IP belongs to Parliamentary Services, i.e. all the public servants who work for MPs use this as their IP address. When you look through the contributions, it's clear that there is a lot of conflict of interest editing going on. This will presumably never change going forward. Hence the thought crossed my mind – shall we consider keeping a permanent block in place but allowing the creation of accounts from that IP address? That way, we'd be dealing with individuals and it's easier to communicate about COI. Pinging active NZ admins @Gadfium, Moriori, and Grutness: but I invite anybody's thoughts. Schwede66 03:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't this belong at AN or ANI, as I believe that IP blocking goes beyond what can reasonable be discussed within a Wikiproject? BilledMammal (talk) 03:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
BilledMammal, if enough of us, especially the active admins, agree on an action, that is good enough for me. Schwede66 03:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) A few minutes earlier, I put semi-protection on the article Harete Hipango which the IP was edit warring on. I note that the talk page of that article does not contain any material related to the IP's disagreement with the sourced content of the article. If no such material is forthcoming, the neutrality tag on the article is invalid and should be removed.
I am happy with Schwede66's block on the IP, and his suggestion that we allow the IP to create an account.-gadfium 03:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't want it blocked because I live for the drama, but yeah it's probably the best call. I was surprised to see the neutrality tag put on there, and reckon it should probably be taken off, considering the editor didn't flag why he thought it wasn't neutral on the talk page. Nauseous Man (talk) 03:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Seems like a prudent move - I wonder if it's worth someone getting in touch with Parliamentary Services as a friendly heads up as well? Turnagra (talk) 04:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Turnagra, good idea. I'll get in touch with them. Schwede66 04:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Seems sensible to me, too. If they want to edit, let them make an account. That way we can keep track of them if they start playing sillybuggers. Grutness...wha? 04:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
We've had similar issues in Australia (COI editing from Parliament House IPs and registered accounts that have the appearance of being linked to politicians or their staff). As a note, this has repeatedly ended up in the media, with Wikipedia editors' posts being quoted, so I'd suggest that NZ editors responding to this be careful about what they say in case the NZ media picks up on this editing. For instance, definitely warn and block the IPs as normal, but don't leave any warning messages or comments you wouldn't want to appear in the news. Nick-D (talk) 05:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
@Nick-D and Turnagra: I've written to parliamentary services. In line with your advice, Nick, it's probably best if we don't put the exact message here. If anyone would like to see the email, send me a Wikimail and I'll reply to that. Schwede66 08:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree with the proposed action. I note the IP quoted as saying: "Controveries" [SIC] section is false, and is causing a lot of distress to her family," I have no opinion on the merits of that case but I think it is sometimes easy for WP editors to forget the effect a casual poorly written and poor sources comment can have on the lives of real people and those close to them.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Roger 8 Roger, can I just clarify with you that with "casual poorly written and poor sources comment", you are not referring to any specific Wikipedia articles (especially not the Hipango bio), but it is meant as a general comment? Given that this page is being watched by journalists and the wider public, it would seem important that we are not saying that these particular problems apply in this case. Schwede66 02:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, my remarks where not about what is happening on the Hipango article: as per my remark above, "I have no opinion on the merits of that case". I was making a general comment that sometimes some editors write detail into articles that can be quite damaging in different ways to real people, which makes it extra important that what we write is carefully worded and properly sourced. This would apply specifically but not exclusively to bios. Sorry for not making that clearer. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


COI edit notice

I have added a {{COI editnotice}} template message to the top of Talk:Harete Hipango and started a discussion about adding this notice to other articles edited by anonymous users using IP 202.22.30.101. I also wondered if the {{Connected contributor |User1=202.22.30.101}} template should also be added to articles where those contributions, indicate a sitting Member of Parliament's biography has been edited, too. Schwede66 advised that the best place for that discussion is here and asked me to identify the articles concerned. Comments in the edit summary of one article indicate Member of Parliament and their staff do not know how to address a Conflict of Interest when editing Wikipedia articles and do not realise they can raise any COI issues on talk pages and seek to have any perceived inaccuracies appropriately modified. To give fair and equal treatment to all concerned, I think all the articles below are candidates to have a COI edit notice and a connected contributor notice on their talk pages. While I agree that some articles are not obviously connected to a sitting Member of Parliament and could be casual editing by readers wishing to remain anonymous, the fact that several recent edits to seemingly unrelated articles have been immediately reverted suggests that something inappropriate might be going on. So, to give fair and equal treatment to all concerned, I think any anonymous contribution from this IP address to those articles should at least be examined and considered for a COI notice, as well. The following list of candidate articles, with contributions since 2017, is ordered by the most recent edit of each candidate article (duplicates removed). A couple of Talk page contributions have been omitted as those edits are not COI issues. Entries marked with a "*" have a tag indicating the latest edit was reverted. The entry marked "?" indicates the edit undid an edit by another user. I would welcome any thoughts. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Last edit (UTC) Article edited Details
23:25, 25 January 2022 Harete Hipango
23:38, 21 December 2021 The British Grenadiers#‎Christchurch mosque shootings * good faith edit contrary to wiki consensus - reverted
10:07, 3 December 2021 Shane Reti * ten good faith edits - reverted partly - edit summary advice to use talk page. COI
09:41, 9 November 2021 David Beattie constructive edit, current version
22:05, 16 September 2021 Eddy Merckx constructive edit, no COI
01:39, 5 August 2021 Durban Review Conference constructive edit that removed editorializing
07:14, 3 August 2021 2023 Men's FIH Hockey World Cup#‎Qualification * 3 edits. self-reverted changes
02:02, 6 July 2021 New Plymouth Girls' High School ‎ Good faith addition of a prominent politician to alumni, verified
20:19, 19 May 2021 VicLabour ‎ Unsourced edit changing ideology, reverted
21:19, 22 April 2021 NaMo * Vandalism
21:48, 15 February 2021 Rino Tirikatene * removal of content claimed irrelevant (twice) - reverted and sourced by others - COI
03:22, 15 January 2021 Meka Whaitiri constructive edit - change of tense - COI
02:58, 15 January 2021 Kelvin Davis (politician) * removal of sourced content claimed irrelevant - reverted - COI
20:28, 14 December 2020 New Zealand Customs Service ‎ constructive edit - update - has COI potential
04:35, 25 November 2020 List of electoral firsts in New Zealand ‎ constructive edits of historic info with new citation - has COI potential
01:27, 11 November 2020 Chris Bishop (politician) ‎ constructive edit - update - COI
21:31, 29 October 2020 Tracey McLellan ‎ ‎constructive edit - correction - COI
21:59, 21 October 2020 Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand constructive edit - update post election - COI
00:20, 16 October 2020 Christchurch City Council constructive edit - update - has COI potential
02:30, 14 October 2020 Māori electorates ‎ good faith edits to same area that was reverted in 2018 - possible COI
03:17, 13 October 2020 List of joint winners of the Hugo and Nebula awards constructive edit, no COI
01:11, 23 September 2020 New Zealand electorates ‎ constructive edit - same topic as edit to ‎Māori electorates - possible COI
02:57, 21 September 2020 Advance New Zealand ‎ increased negativity of lead section using allegation in body - subsequently expanded upon by others - likely COI
03:26, 18 September 2020 Campbell Barry non-neutral edit - neutralized by next editor - possible COI as local government politician
02:22, 17 September 2020 Progressive Conservative Party of New Brunswick ‎ edit altered political position - foreign party - no COI‎?
02:21, 17 September 2020 Saskatchewan Party ‎ Change to political positioning. Foreign party, so no COI?
00:14, 16 September 2020 Lawrence Yule ‎ Honorifics, unsupported family details; partly reverted
03:27, 11 September 2020 Dail Jones * Good-faith edit made in error; self-reverted
00:42, 10 September 2020 New Zealand First ‎ Unsourced changes to party positioning; reverted
00:16, 7 September 2020 Fran Wilde ‎ ‎constructive edit - update placename - past MP
04:28, 3 September 2020 Whetu Tirikatene-Sullivan ‎ constructive edit - correction with source in edit summary - past MP
02:35, 2 September 2020 Billy Te Kahika ‎ negative edit to non-sitting politician - reverted - COI
23:55, 12 July 2020 Pip Adam constructive edits - nz author - no COI
23:19, 17 April 2020 5th/7th Battalion, Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment good faith edit - update names - not sourced - possible COI
11:00, 19 March 2020 Chris Bishop (politician) ‎ good faith edit but contrary to existing source - reverted - COI
20:26, 11 March 2020 Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment constructive edit with citation - update responsible minister - possible COI
05:09, 8 February 2020 2020 New Zealand general election constructive edit with citation - has COI potential
02:24, 15 January 2020 Jan Logie ‎ Updated link to profile on party website with rest of Green party MPs, probable COI
02:18, 15 January 2020 Gareth Hughes (politician) ‎ Updated link to profile on party website with rest of Green party MPs, probable COI
02:15, 15 January 2020 Eugenie Sage ‎ Updated link to profile on party website with rest of Green party MPs, probable COI
02:12, 15 January 2020 Julie Anne Genter ‎ Updated link to profile on party website with rest of Green party MPs, probable COI
02:10, 15 January 2020 Marama Davidson ‎ Updated link to profile on party website with rest of Green party MPs, probable COI
02:09, 15 January 2020 James Shaw (New Zealand politician) ‎ Updated link to profile on party website with rest of Green party MPs, probable COI
02:06, 15 January 2020 Golriz Ghahraman ‎ Updated link to profile on party website with rest of Green party MPs, probable COI
02:36, 5 December 2019 Tāmati Coffey Fairly substantial changes to the intro, most have been altered by further edits since but some still there. Seems sourced but potentially WP:UNDUE. Likely COI
04:32, 12 November 2019 Serjeant-at-arms#‎New Zealand Minor changes to titles of NZ role and figures - unsourced but unable to find any information confirming either way. Possible COI
21:10, 23 October 2019 Gerry Brownlee partly unconstructive edit - partly reverted, constructive information kept - COI
22:53, 21 October 2019 Tyrel Lomax constructive edit - sports player - no COI
02:45, 2 October 2019 Sixth Labour Government of New Zealand constructive edit - COI
22:33, 29 August 2019 Chlöe Swarbrick constructive edits with citations - COI
00:01, 23 August 2019 Outlander (TV series) ‎ Constructive edit, no COI
01:17, 22 August 2019 Ian McKelvie ‎ unconstructive edit targeting qualification, similar edits in 2018, contrary to source - reverted both times - COI
01:25, 17 August 2019 Judy Keall ‎ constructive edit - COI
20:17, 7 July 2019 Brett Hudson (politician) good faith edit - reverted with improvement - COI
04:23, 29 May 2019 Luke Howarth constructive edit - foreign politician - no COI
00:35, 23 May 2019 David Carter (politician) edit to soften role in controversial decision - reverted - COI at the time - now retired MP
02:47, 16 May 2019 Te Puni Kōkiri constructive edit - update to ministers - possible COI
22:43, 22 January 2019 New Zealand Parliamentary Library good faith edit to update dead link - next editor improved link to likely target and noted COI
00:25, 18 October 2018 Maureen Pugh removed sourced content claiming defamation, inaccurate and offensive - reverted immediately - COI
09:55, 18 September 2018 David Seymour (New Zealand politician) attempted correction - COI noted with reasons in edit summary - rewritten and sourced by others
00:43, 3 September 2018 Dan Bidois ‎ unsourced edit to add middle name - reverted - later sourced by others - COI
04:28, 20 August 2018 Todd Muller constructive edit - updated roles - most survives in current article - COI
22:33, 16 August 2018 Te Tai Hauāuru good faith edit with typo - subsequently corrected - COI
22:25, 7 August 2018 List of city and town nicknames in New Zealand ‎ Unsupported change, reverted. No COI
22:00, 29 July 2018 Capital Football W-League Constructive edit, no COI
22:37, 25 July 2018 Tracey Martin one edit out of 19 removes sourced content concerning party position, buried in 18 other seemingly constructive edits updating article. - COI at the time - no longer sitting MP
04:45, 9 July 2018 Leighton Baker constructive edit - NZ politician - possible COI
03:30, 14 June 2018 Tim Macindoe constructive edit - update election results - COI
03:34, 1 June 2018 Māori electorates ? reverted a reversion - no discussion of copyright questions - anonymous IP user claims uncited source authorship - COI
00:09, 1 June 2018 Te Aroha constructive edit - add MP name to notable person list - COI
22:15, 31 May 2018 Reserved political positions good faith edit similar to that made to Māori electorates and New Zealand electorates - content possible COI as contributed by source author but article is of global extent
22:03, 17 May 2018 Pip Adam good faith edit adding website URL. modified by next editor - NZ author - no obvious COI
00:21, 12 April 2018 Die Mannequin Constructive edit, no COI
03:09, 11 April 2018 Tim Macindoe Some helpful edits, but also sanitised views on smacking and marriage equality. Now restored.
21:07, 30 March 2018 Hawke's Bay Region constructive edit, no COI
10:59, 11 March 2018 Ginny Andersen constructive edit (added ref for cn)
04:34, 3 February 2018 Marama Davidson ‎ added unreferenced material; reverted. Vandalism in Aug 2018.
01:40, 18 January 2018 Pukekohe High School good faith addition of non-notable person - reverted - no obvious COI
00:56, 18 January 2018 Ian McKelvie ‎ unconstructive edits targeting qualification, similar edit in 2019, contrary to source - reverted both times - COI
23:25, 18 December 2017 New Zealand Constitution Amendment (Request and Consent) Act 1947 ‎ constructive edit updating external link to parliament website - NZ constitution related foreign legislation - has COI potential
03:10, 5 December 2017 Alec McLean ‎ constructive edits in March and December updating roles for notable person on parliamentary staff - probable COI
01:23, 2 November 2017 Willie Jackson (politician) five good faith edits that removed sources - reverted twice - COI
04:10, 24 October 2017 Mark Mitchell (New Zealand politician) ‎ constructive edits - update roles - COI
00:05, 21 October 2017 Marja Lubeck constructive edits - added unsourced information subsequently sourced by others - COI
18:47, 10 October 2017 Duncan Webb ‎ ‎good faith but unsourced edit to birth year - subsequently sourced by others - COI
12:05, 3 October 2017 Paul Eagle ‎ good faith edit about family but contrary to source - reverted - COI
03:05, 7 August 2017 Jono Naylor ‎ seven consecutive good faith edits that removed sourced content and added unsourced claims - reverted by next editor - COI at the time - retired MP
04:29, 27 June 2017 Tauranga Boys' College constructive edit - add MP to notable persons - content is COI and needs update - article not COI
01:44, 29 March 2017 2017 New Zealand general election ‎ constructive edit - update to number of retiring MPs - has COI potential
01:51, 20 March 2017 Michael Laws good faith edit - changed placename for events prior to the placename change which were not changed by previous editor, no supporting sources that current spelling was used at the time in relation to the places concerned. - possible COI as local government politician and former MP
00:41, 17 March 2017 William Sio unconstructive edit to website URL rendering it non-functional - reverted - COI
Based on the Australian experience, I'd suggest being cautious in adding these types of tags on BLP grounds, as well as to discourage unnecessary drama. Some Australian politicians have been criticised in the media and social media for editing of their article that they might not have had anything to do with. Some government agencies have also been criticised for insignificant edits made by their staff (for instance petty vandalism made during lunch hours), which the media has beaten up into stories claiming that this was official editing by the agency! I'd suggest only tagging articles where the IP(s) have added material that is clearly highly promotional or highly critical of the subject. Nick-D (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I've added an extra column to the table, so we can note down whether or not the edits seem OK. I've had a look at a small handful that were not obviously connected to NZ politics, almost all of which seem fine. Grutness...wha? 03:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Good idea. I have added a few more notes about some of the recent contributions. Also, in the WikiProject Biography banner template there is the option to add the attribute: |activepol=yes which would display the notice at {{Active politician}}. I am not sure it is any better than a COI notice, apart from election time. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 04:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Cameron Dewe, excellent work; thank you. That'll help with any cleanup if that's still required and it shows that as a community, we actively mitigate COI editing. Just for the record, the most egregious COI editing that I've ever come across was the Judith Collins article, where User:Jc press sec was having an obvious conflict. In 2014, Nicky Hager revealed in his book Dirty Politics that it was Cameron Slater who was paid by Collins for work on Wikipedia and who owned that username. It was quite something! Schwede66 22:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
@Schwede66: I would like to point out that the checks by Turnagra and IdiotSavant helped, which saved me a lot of work. So they deserve credit too. My general impression is that many of the edits from this IP address are made in good faith but the people making them seem unaware of core Wikipedia policies like verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view and that following the biography of living persons guidelines supports these fundamental policies. Some constructive edits are well sourced and it appears the people who make those edits know what Wikipedia requires of them to have their anonymous edits accepted. A lot more of the edits are made in good faith by people who boldly edit an article but do not engage in discussion if their edit is reverted. And many of them are. Sometimes other editors even come along and clean up the mess by making constructive edits to improve the edited articles. The residual few articles where content has been removed in a similar way to what happened in the Harete Hipango article are perhaps candidates for notices, but this could be a graduated response. A first reversion might trigger enabling the "active politician" message in the biography banner. A second reversion might result in adding the {{Connected contributor |User1=202.22.30.101}} template to the talk page, while a third reversion might result in the full COI edit notice treatment. Consideration could be given to removing notices once there is consensus-seeking discussion about adding content by closely related users. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 04:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Cameron Dewe, yes, credit also to the other worker bees! Going forward, "active politician" isn't really the right message right now as we are far out from an election, and we won't need the "connected contributor" tag either as I think we'll keep the parliamentary IP blocked. We have yet to hear from Moriori on the proposal but if he also agrees, I'll turn that into a permanent block. Schwede66 04:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
@Schwede66: I think requiring any anonymous users to create editing accounts when using this IP address makes sense. That way, other Wikipedia editors can communicate directly with the individuals concerned, rather than having all Wikipedia readers using the parliamentary service IP address being alerted to any Wikipedia editing issues. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Parliamentary services COI – update

Two things:

  • As agreed, I've extended the IP block (it had expired at 3pm today and there were a few hours when the IP was available for editing again but no edits were done). The block renewal reminded me that there is no such thing as an indef block for an IP address; 3 years is max. I'll put a reminder into my calendar.
  • Four of us had a meeting with a handful of staff from parliamentary services and the parliamentary library this afternoon. Very useful session. This can be a very fruitful working relationship. In the first instance, we will upskill some of the key staff on the rules around WP editing. We'll also work towards setting up a project page. Other Wikipedians in the meeting were Pakoire, Giantflightlessbirds, and Marshelec.

There'll be more to report in due course and there'll be opportunity for everybody to have input. Schwede66 08:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Use of kawanatanga in treaty issues

User:BilledMammal recently made a couple of changes (1, 2) in which the term kawanatanga is replaced with governance in relation to what was ceded by Māori with the Treaty of Waitangi / te Tiriti o Waitangi. Given the potential WP:NPOV issues that such a move brings up, I'm keen to get some wider input on what the most suitable term to use is, or whether there's another way we can approach this when describing what was ceded by Māori with te Tiriti. Also, just to quickly clarify, this isn't intended as a slight against BilledMammal - they have agreed that the edit could have inadvertently caused NPOV concerns and that it's worth a wider discussion. I'm sure that wasn't their intention with the edits. Turnagra (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Turnagra, good issue to flag. I think this Te Ara page could assist in explaining why the term kawanatanga is not exactly equivalent to governance, if needed. As a side note, I'm not sure this is currently well-explained in the kawanatanga article, and maybe that article could also do with some work? (I'd add it to my list, but real life commitments at the moment mean I'm not sure I'll get to it in the near future.) Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 05:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Agree that the kawanatanga (sidenote: it seems that this should actually have a macron, so kāwanatanga) article, and articles relating to te ao Māori in general, need a lot of work. I'll try and get to it at some point if no-one else gets there first, but I'm not sure whether I could do it proper justice. Turnagra (talk) 07:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, thank you. Generally, I prefer to use terms that readers can understand without having to read a separate article, but I forgot that in this example the translation itself is at the heart of historical disputes that remain relevant today. In longer articles, we can address this with explanation of the term and the dispute, but I don't believe we can do that with lists. BilledMammal (talk) 05:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
I can see it being difficult to have a proper explanation in the list, which is why I'm hoping someone might have a better term to use. Or alternatively we could have both (eg. "...ceded kāwanatanga (governance)...") even if that's still not great, it at least lists both? Turnagra (talk) 07:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
I would normally support clarification like that if there was a consensus against just using the translation, but in this case I don't believe it addresses your NPOV concerns, as it still supports the meaning being governance rather than sovereignty. Hopefully, someone can come up with a better term, but I'm not sure one exists. BilledMammal (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
When a complex word isn’t easily explained in parentheses, I suggest that the next best thing is to use a footnote based on the templates efn and notelist. Schwede66 16:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree that 'governance' is incorrect in this statement - is not a neutral point of view. I suggest the statement be re-written so the question of translation isn't one. Instead of "Treaty of Waitangi between the British Crown and the indigenous Māori tribes cedes governance of New Zealand to Queen Victoria." How about "Treaty of Waitangi where the British Crown 'acquired the right to govern' from indigenous Māori tribes". My preferred longer version would be with this at the end "... in exchange for the protection of Māori interests." The reference for this is p14 He Kupu Tuarangi by Chris Finlayson and James Christmas 2021. It is a paraphrase / quote mash up so would need to be referenced as per Schwedes suggestion. I will look for other summaries too. Just the book I had to hand and a very recent publication... Pakoire (talk) 04:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
In any case I think "governorship" may be a better word to use than "governance". "Governance" is one of those tricky words which doesn't mean exactly what a lot of people think it means. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I have posted a note to User:GreenKakapo's talk page about List_of_kākāpō and related articles. There is over-coverage and reliance on primary sources. These articles appear to be being largely built by well-meaning but not wiki-aware folks who are invested in Kākāpō. If someone or some people could give them a hand bringing them to wiki norms, that would be great. There are ~5000 kakapo articles in google scholar, so there's lots of sources, but twitter updates shouldn't be our first stop. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I think the List of kākāpō article is fine as a concept, though it could potentially do with a bit of work. I note that it's got a fairly robust edit history going back over a decade with quite a few different authors. I wonder if an issue with sourcing could be related to whether journal articles are likely to use the names of individual kākāpō? Turnagra (talk) 07:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I beg to differ, it's a train wreck. More than 75% of the references are to primary sources. Much is made of 'Fiordland kākāpō' without mentioning that most are from Stewart Island / Rakiura. "As of today, the New Zealand Dept of Conservation site shows a population of 201" is clearly wrong and has been for some time. It seems improbably that the 1970's era captive birds weren't named and their info published, but these are not mentioned. The "quite a few different authors" include a large number of IP addresses and SPAs (User:TheyLookLikeUs, User:Kauaikakapo, User:SōkLemon, User:GreenKakapo, etc). Need I go on?Stuartyeates (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Sorry - for clarity, I meant that I think the concept of a "List of kākāpō" as an article is fine. I agree that the article itself needs a fair bit of work. Turnagra (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Primary sources are fine for "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts". WP:PRIMARY OTOH, {{Number of Living Kakapo}} is one of the odder templates I've seen. Furius (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Regions of New Zealand

Every time I visit this category or one of its subcategories I'm instantly reminded of how haphazard the naming scheme is. There are categories for:

  • Auckland Region
  • Bay of Plenty Region
  • Hawke's Bay Region
  • Northland Region, and
  • Wellington Region

but also for

  • Manawatū-Whanganui
  • Otago
  • Taranaki
  • Waikato
  • Canterbury, New Zealand
  • Southland, New Zealand, and
  • West Coast, New Zealand.

The unitary authorities are equally mixed, at

  • Gisborne District
  • Marlborough Region
  • Nelson Region (which contains a Nelson, New Zealand subcat for the city proper), and
  • Tasman District

Ideally, it would be more intuitive if they were all at Foo Region (which is how they are on commons), but it's more a cosmetic change than anything else, and I'd understand it if Gisborne, Marlborough, and Tasman were all at Foo District. It'd be nice to have some consistency, though. Anyone got any thoughts? Grutness...wha? 01:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Region would probably work, but I wonder whether it would be suitable in all cases (except for the districts you mentioned) - in particular, I'm thinking of Manawatū-Whanganui, which I'm not sure I've ever heard of as "Manawatū-Whanganui Region". For consistency I think it'd be fine even if some of them are a bit clunky. Turnagra (talk) 02:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Just to throw further confusion into the mix - Auckland is now a unitary authority (not a region as such) and there's also the Chatham Islands which is almost but not quite a unitary authority, and there is an Area Outside Territorial Authority, population: lots of penguins and a handful of weathermen and DOC rangers. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
You might all want to check out previous move requests. Yes, there was an attempt to have a clean naming convention for all regions, a multi move request was put forward and shot down in flames as unworkable, it then went to individual move requests and the outcome is what we've got in front of us. That's not to say that we couldn't straighten this out but it's worth knowing that this has been tried before. Schwede66 08:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Mmmmm. At the very least, I think Canterbury, Southland, and West Coast should be moved. Currently they look like towns. Grutness...wha? 23:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
I assume that they are there to avoid ambiguity with similar regions elsewhere (e.g. West Coast, Germany, West Coast, Tasmania, West Coast, Singapore) and that consideration does seem to trump the desire for consistency within the set of NZ regions. Furius (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

New location maps

Thanks to the wonderful Ikonact, we now have a range of new location maps which can be used for NZ articles. So far, this includes Fiordland, Banks Peninsula, and the Marlborough Sounds as I thought these areas were the most detailed and not sufficiently covered by existing location maps. I'm going through and updating the relevant articles now, but thought it worth posting here in case others wanted to update things or add these to their new articles!

Turnagra (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Grant Tilly

The link on the Grant Tilly page to Carry Me Back is to something other than the 1982 comedy feature which Mr. Tilly was in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher1968 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know - it doesn't have an article, so I've fixed it to point to where the article would go if it got written. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Mangamutu

I see that Gildir has translated one of the locality articles—Mangamutu—from the Māori Wikipedia (but not linked to it via Wikidata for some reason). Gildir, can I please ask that you don't do these translations? What's on the Māori Wikipedia is bot-generated crap. The map is totally meaningless. Most of the article has nothing to do with the place itself. Have you translated anything else or is this it? I'm asking because this needs serious cleanup and we might as well know about all instances of this. Schwede66 22:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Totally agree Schwede. Pointless if you're not at least going to add a bit more info. I quickly gave a clean up, added a infobox, and added a bit more. Still needs work.ShakyIsles (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
ShakyIsles, that's looking a million times better already. Well done, ShakyIsles. Schwede66 02:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Mangamutu is the only article I've translated from Māori Wikipedia. I won't translate any more of these kinds of articles. Thank you so much for improving the article, ShakyIsles -- it looks great! Gildir (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Gildir, thanks for reporting back. Much appreciated. Schwede66 07:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

New Zealand academics and categorisation

There's a discussion I'd encourage you to engage with at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_February_19#Category:New_Zealand_academics. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Rapid Grant to attend National Digital Forum conference 2022

Just to let members of WikiProject New Zealand know that I've just submitted my report on my attendance at the National Digital Forum 2022. This was funded by the Wikimedia Foundation via a rapid grant. Ambrosia10 (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

International Women's Day 2022 Weekend Editathon 5 & 6 March 2022

You are invited to join in an upcoming editathon to create and improve content about women on Wikipedia in recognition International Women's Day.
The event starts at 9am on Saturday March 5th and goes until 9pm on Sunday March 6th.
Our goal is 20 new articles and 20 improved articles.
The intention is people can contribute for a short time or for longer - whatever suits you and your other activities over the weekend.

There are many ways you can participate:

  • find a short article about a New Zealand women and improve it
  • create a new article on a notable women from your region or your area of work
  • join us online in some informal Zoom time to meet some other editors
  • add your name to the project page
  • add your improved or created articles to the project page
  • join the dashboard to track your edits
  • get coaching from an experienced editor to upskill in any area, or ask those questions that pop up
  • see a list of suggested articles with references already collated

Please see the project page for more details: New Zealand International Women's Day Wikipedia Editathon.
To join the zoom you will need to register for a ticket with Eventbrite.

Biographies of women are currently sitting at 19.16% of bios on Wikipedia. Join in to address the imbalance and enjoy celebrating and learning about notable women in our communities.

Pakoire (talk) 05:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Invitation to meeting to establish NZ group

We plan to hold a community meeting to establish Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand Inc ("WANZ Inc") as an Incorporated Society and register as a charitable entity

Thursday 17 March 2022 7:30 pm Online: please register here and you’ll be sent the Zoom link: [[1]]

The WANZ Establishment Working Group (WEWG) consists of the following people: User:Giantflightlessbirds (Mike Dickison) User:MurielMary User:Einebillion (Victoria Leachman) User:Marshelec (Marshall Clark) User:Noracrentiss (Christine Richardson)

Why an incorporated society? Our purpose is to establish an organisation in New Zealand that can promote and support development of content on Wikimedia Foundation platforms and encourage increased participation by New Zealand residents and those associated with our country. In particular, we require a more formal organisation if we are to apply for and receive significant grants.

The proposed structure (an incorporated society with charitable status) enables grass-roots involvement of the membership in all the important decision-making of the society. The proposed society will:

  • keep members informed of its activities through a range of media
  • provide learning pathways for developing Wikimedia-related skills
  • coordinate projects
  • apply for or support applications for funding


What will be the entitlements and obligations of being a Member of WANZ Inc? Entitlements: Members of WANZ Inc can

  • stand for election to the Committee
  • vote at the AGM

Obligations:

  • Members must pay an annual membership fee (determined at the AGM) in order to retain their entitlements as a member. Members can resign their membership at any time.

What’s been done so far: WEWG prepared an initial draft Constitution for WANZ which was made available for comment. Notices were placed on and off Wikipedia calling for input. The WEWG received and considered several comments and suggestions and made a small number of changes to the document. The revised draft is now available for the next step. You can read it here:[[2]]

Meanwhile, Marshall Clark has begun drafting a set of Standard Operating Procedures for consideration and adoption by the new organisation. These SOPs will cover the everyday running of WANZ including things like Role Descriptions for Committee Members.

Next steps: The WEWG will convene an online meeting of "members" (people interested in setting up the Society) to do the following:

  • approve the rules/constitution
  • resolve to apply for incorporation
  • decide who will be the president, vice-president, secretary and treasurer (two-year terms)
  • choose who will fill the other committee positions (two-year terms)
  • decide on a physical address for the registered office plus an email address for communications
  • decide on the month in which the Society's AGM is to be held (The Society's financial year is the calendar year so April seems a suitable month for the AGM.)

After that meeting, the newly established Committee will:

  • gather 15 signatures for the application for incorporation
  • submit the application to the Registrar of Incorporated Societies
  • apply for registration as a charity with Charities Services
  • establish a bank account

WANZ Committee The Constitution requires formation of a Committee so please consider whether you wish to put yourself forward for one of the Committee roles set out in the Constitution. (While the Constitution states that the term is for 2 years, a Committee member can resign at any time.) MurielMary (talk) 09:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Merger discussion in progress

Mactra ovata appears to be a synonym for this and should, if that's correct be merged/redirected to Paphies australis (pipi). Grateful for comments on this at Talk:Paphies australis, since biology is quite a way outside me wheelhouse and I may have misunderstood the situation. Furius (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Meeting Invitation: to establish Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand Inc ("WANZ Inc") as an Incorporated Society and register as a charitable entity

Kia ora,

We are meeting on Thursday 17 March at 7.30pm on Zoom to establish Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand Inc ("WANZ Inc") as an Incorporated Society. Please do join us. You can find more information including registration details here Einebillion (talk) 02:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Otago page move

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Otago#Requested move 15 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Otago#Requested move 15 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Aotearoa New Zealand Online Meetup

This meetup is happening virtually on Sunday the 3 April from Noon until 2pm NZST. The video conferencing link to attend the online meetup is given in the meetup page. Any Wikimedian working on New Zealand content is very welcome to attend. Einebillion (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Auckland Wiki Meetup

Kia ora,

A few of us have been wanting to organise an Auckland wiki meetup for a while and have finally given up waiting to have it in person. We will be holding it over zoom this weekend on the Saturday at 11am. For our first one we're keeping it short and sweet, we'll be having breakout rooms so beginners and experienced editors can be paired together and get hands on help and also allow for discussions of a wider range of projects. Details can be found on the Meetup Page Susan Tol (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Culture of Auckland

If anyone could help get Culture of Auckland to the same standard as Culture of Sydney or Culture of Melbourne, that would be super cool. --Aubernas (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Invitation to peer-review of Draft:Sam Duckor-Jones

Kia ora, I would appreciate if anyone has a moment to peer-review Draft:Sam Duckor-Jones before I submit it for the AfC process. Thank you! Nauseous Man (talk) 10:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

It's Duckor not Ducker. :) --Gertrude206 (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
How on earth did I do this lol. I didn't want to keep typing his name, so I just copy and pasting. At least the title is correct heh. Thank you!! Nauseous Man (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

The draft is now in the AfC process, if there's any admins lurking around who want to speed up the process.... Nauseous Man (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

That's not quite correct, Nauseous Man. What editors need is the New Page Reviewer right (which admins automatically have). If editors could be interested in that, follow the link and have a read. If you think you meet the criteria (the bar isn't very high at all), please apply for this. Schwede66 00:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
oh! Excellent. I didn't know that. I'll have a look, thank you. Nauseous Man (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Avondale Road Station discussion

I've just opened a discussion at Talk:Avondale Road railway station about whether that station ever actually existed - any input would be greatly appreciated! Turnagra (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Wellington Wikimedia meetup - online

Kia ora,

The Wellington meetup will be held virtually on Saturday the 16th of April at 10am. The video conferencing link to attend the online meetup is given in the meetup page. Any Wikimedian in Wellington or working on Wellington content is very welcome to attend. -Ambrosia10 (talk) 19:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Is there any interest in resuming in-person meetings at He Matapihi in May? --Gertrude206 (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
I would certainly be keen. :) Chocmilk03 (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Meeting notes from the Wellington Meetup

Here are the notes from the Wellington meetup held this morning. Einebillion (talk) 00:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Move request on Cam River (Canterbury)

Kia ora koutou, just a quick notice to let you know that there's an ongoing move request at Talk:Cam River (Canterbury) which affects a few NZ places that you might be interested in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cam_River_(Canterbury)#Requested_move_22_March_2022

Cheers Turnagra (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

New Wikiproject - NZThesis

Just noting the creation of a new Wikiproject, NZThesisProject which aims to upload metadata for New Zealand theses to Wikidata. Thus far the team have developed a model for a thesis on Wikidata and collected a large dataset, which is in the process of being cleaned ready for upload. Please visit the project page to find out more, and let us know if you have any interest in the area. DrThneed (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Aotearoa New Zealand User Group meetup

The monthly Wikimedia User Group of Aoteaora New Zealand meeting will be held virtually today in about an hour. Apologies for the late notification. See Wikipedia:Meetup/Aotearoa_New_Zealand_Online/23 for further details and hope to see you there. Ambrosia10 (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_Zealand_Wikipedians%27_notice_board/Archive_31&oldid=1090273130"