Talk:Masterton

Talk

The following section is hearsay and constitutes an opinion:

"Some residents of Wellington see Masterton as backward and inconsequential, and sometimes rather unkindly refer to it as masturbation."

It also appears not conform to the Wikipedia:Verifiability guidelines. Please see the "Verifiablity, Not Truth" section of that page. If a verifiable source for this statement can be named, it should be added. In the absence of a verifiable source, this statement should be removed.

No doubt some residents of Wellington hold this opinion, but this would be only one of a spectrum of opinions and names. It also makes no sense to have "toned it down" from the previous edit "masturbation over the hill".

The same argument applies to:

"A road tunnel has been proposed in the past but it would be a huge project, and there are fears that this would remove the separation of the valley from Wellington and make it more like a suburb."

A verifiable source should be included for the size of the project and for the reasons for doing it/not doing it, if one can be found. If not, then the opinion should be removed. The best source I have found for this information is the Greater Wellington Regional Council "Wairarapa Corridor Plan" from December 2003, which has no mention whatsoever of a road tunnel.–

A better edit would probably be:

"As of the latest transportation plan from the Greater Wellington Regional Council(1), the road link is to be improved with upgrades to the existing Rimutaka Hill road and the addition of passing lanes between Featherston and Masterton."

(1) http://www.gw.govt.nz/council-publications/pdfs/Regional%20Transport_20031218_150035.pdf

It would be good to find verifiable sources for the other facts in the article, specifically:

• the Masterton population (most likely from the Statistics NZ Census information)
• source for the fact that the city status requirement was lifted in 1989 from 20,000 to 50,000
• sources for the founder and the dates specified

22:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

<13 July 2006 TFS> - The original plan for the tunnel was proposed by the United States in order to be able to access the Prisoner of War camp at Featherston. My home town in Masterton and I have never ever heard the references above - even after living in Wellington for over 10 years.

Wellington/Wairarapa

I have changed this article to reflect that Masterton is in the Wellington region. It has always been in the Wellington region. The Wairarapa is not governed by a body specific to the Wairarapa, and the article should reflect that the Wairarapa is only a geographical location and not a local government or regional government area. Enzedbrit 11:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Although it belongs to the Greater Wellington Regional Council, Wairarapa is made up of a number local government areas( Masterton District Council, Carterton District Council, South Wairarapa District Council.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.126.3.217 (talk) 04:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Miniature railway map

I boldly removed this from the article. This map was built in the following edit: [1] by an editor who has only been editing since August last year. It has zero encyclopedic relevance, the railways is not notable, nor is the park it belongs in. The template bs-map is normally used for main passenger railways, not for local miniature lines. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information or fancruft. @Eddaido: give me a good proper reason why this deserves a place on Wikipedia. Ajf773 (talk) 09:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I see by your recent edits you are indeed in a boldly negative frame of mind in relation to WP.

The little railway has been established and running entirely by voluntary activity to my own knowledge for, I believe, more than half a century. (I was asked to drive it in the 1970s and at that time I lived in Wellington.)

I like the picture and the attention it brings to the railway. So it would appear does everyone but you.

Nevertheless in your current frame of mind try to look at it this way: I like it, the person who put it in likes it. That is two votes to your one. So just leave it be. Thank you, Eddaido (talk) 09:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

So your argument is based on personal liking it, rather than policy? Can you name a single miniature railway that uses this template? And is adequately sourced? Ajf773 (talk) 10:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• I suggest an annotated copy of the Basemap would be better and that it'd be more appropriate in the Queen Elizabeth Park, Masterton article. Johnragla (talk) 09:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for pointing out there is actually an article for the park. The content you put in this evening is, in my view, more fitting to that article, rather than the Masterton article, although a brief summary of the railway would still be appropriate. And I maintain my position that there is no need for a map of the railway. Ajf773 (talk) 10:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Content about Queen Elizabeth Park

I propose moving the majority of the existing content in this article about Queen Elizabeth Park to the article Queen Elizabeth Park, Masterton, leaving just a short summary and a Main template link, as per WP:SUMMARY...Marshelec (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I still intend to reduce the content about the park in this article, but in the interim I have added a main template link to make it more obvious that a separate article exists, and copied the content about the miniature railway into the article about the park. I note the content about the miniature railway includes multiple citations to Facebook and I will aim to replace these where possible.Marshelec (talk) Marshelec (talk) 09:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)