Talk:Christchurch/Archive 1

Parker-Hulme Murder
Why is there no reference to the infamous Parker-Hulme murder in this article? The murder has been the basis of several major movies and is no doubt a major part of Christchurch's history. At the very least the two girls who committed the murder should be listed with the "famous people" section...especially Anne Perry aka Juliet Hulme. It almost seems as though the murder is being deliberately excluded from this article. Paco8191 (talk) 05:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Colin, it's good to see another New Zealander here. There's lots of stuff to write about NZ, some of which I've listed on my user:Carey Evans page.

However, it's really hard for me to see how this addition fits into an encyclopedia article about Christchurch city, especially when the link is broken. Maybe it could go on a separate page, not tacked onto a paragraph about the city's population? --Carey Evans


 * Eleven of these 324,300 persons (5 men and 6 ladies) form a singing group called "The Troupers". What's so amazing is their average age (69), their repertoire (700 lyrics) and their "output" with 125 performances per year to mainly rest homes, hospitals and senior citizens club.
 * Find more about The Troupers at http://communities.msn.co.nz/theTroupers.
 * (from Colin Houston)

City status
An anon user removed the line ...

Christchurch became a city by Royal Charter on July 31, 1856, making it the oldest city in New Zealand.

... without offering any reason for doing so. If it is factually wrong, correct it rather than removing it. I can't see any reason for not including this information on the history of a city. dramatic 00:38, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Conflicting information to this in "The New Zealand Book of Events" (ed. Gordon MacLauglin). Which says that the first city council in new Zealand was the wellington city council, set up in 1841. Dunedin City Council was established in 1865, Christchurch and Timaru both had City Councils in 1868. I realise a city council and a city don't necessarily have the same start date, but the two usually go hand in hand, and if the WCC was established in 1841... Mind you, that sounds mighty early - the place was only settled the previous year! [[User:Grutness|Grutness hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|30px|]]]]
 * See Mayor of Wellington for an explanation: Welly was incorporated as a borough in 1842 but the Ordinance under which that was done was quashed by the Government in London so the Council was disbanded in 1843. Wellington was then gazetted as a city in 1870.
 * The current reading of that line ("Christchurch became a city by Royal Charter on 31 July 1856, making it officially the oldest established city in New Zealand") can be argued as non-NPOV. With what neutral party (recognized by Wikipedia) must cities register to become officially established?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.165.90.93 (talk) 09:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Maori legend
"Tautahi, who is believed to have occupied a seasonal dwelling on a bank of the Avon River near to where the Barbadoes Street bridge now stands. To date there is no documentary or archaeological evidence to support this contention."

Where does the claim come from then? If the source is Maori oral history, then it's worth stating as such. But i doubt that oral history has ever claimed to be that accurate. Yes, it might be that Tautahi was said to have lived on the Avon river. But does anyone have a specific source for the claim that he was supposed to have lived by Barbadoes street? If not, then I reckon that part of the statement should be taken out.
 * I've just fixed this up. The previous wording managed to be both vague and insulting - not a good mix. --Snori 16:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Demographics
The picture of a river (the Avon?) does not belong in demographics. Without a caption it does not add information.--Hugh7 09:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Antarctic Expeditions
I've changed "Christchurch has played a significant role in the history of Antarctic exploration. Both Robert Falcon Scott and Ernest Shackleton used the port of Lyttelton as the final departure point for expeditions" to "Christchurch has played a significant role in the history of Antarctic exploration. Both Robert Falcon Scott and Ernest Shackleton used the port of Lyttelton as a departure point for expeditions". Scott's expedition went to Port Chalmers after leaving Lyttelton. 00:23, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

true?
"a hot föhn wind that is associated with increases in suicide and domestic violence"
 * 1) Is this true?
 * 2) Is it worthy of being in the article?

--Clawed 10:21, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe that there's plenty of anecdotal evidence from police and hospital statistics. Not sure if there have been proper studies of the phenomenon.
 * If we can find a reference, definately
 * dramatic 06:20, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * After weeding out all the Wikipedia clones, the Meteorological service seems fairly convinced:
 * dramatic 26 Feb 2005


 * I don't know if it's true of the Christchurch foehn, but there's a famous line by Raymond Chandler--"those hot dry Santa Ana winds that come down through the mountain passes and curl your hair and make your nerves jump and your skin itch. Meek little wives feel the edge of the carving knife and study their husbands' necks. Anything can happen."
 * &mdash;wwoods 03:54, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * But is any of this really relevant to an encyclopaedia entry on a city? The article is about Christchurch, not föhn winds. I say ditch the whole sentence.
 * wjl 26 March 2005
 * Of course - it is part of the culture of the city. There are even beers named after it. And the observed effects of the wind are specific to Christchurch/Cantrbury, so they belong in this article rather than the article on föhn winds. dramatic 09:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The domestic violence thing is easy to believe. Hot temperatures makes folks crazy. But suicide rates??? With all due respect to the Met Office, that hardly sounds plausible: suicide is linked to severe depression, not warm weather (and the countries with the highest suicide rates tend to be places like Sweden which are cold and dark 6 months a year, not warm tropical countries). I agree that the psychological effects of NorWesters are part of the culture of the Christchurch, but the suicide thing sounds completely off-base. Unless someone can link to an actual study, I'm gonna delete it.

Name of the City
Source for the name of the city is the council website's page on the Sister City Christchurch, Dorset

Zootland 01:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC) See below about update to reflect minutes of Canterbury Association Zootland 23:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC): Source for naming of Christchurch and its Avon river is Volume 1 of the History of Canterbury by Sir James Hight and C.R. Straubel (Canterbury Centennial Association and Whitcombe and Tombs, Christchurch 1957). Both names' history is given on page 121 of Volume 1 of this three-volume history.


 * Today on the main Wikipedia page, in the DYK, it's stated that the city was named after Joseph Brittan's house. Yet in this article, this is not mentioned. Is the DYK tidbit correct or specious? If correct, then this page needs updating, no? Just thought I'd mention this. Thormusique (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC) 4 October 2012


 * Looks like you are a bit confused. Have another read.  Schwede 66  17:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Mount Cavendish
I created a new stub, Mount Cavendish, I thought someone might have something to add, also it would be nice to get both photos of, and from, to add. WikiDon 06:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Born in Christchurch section
I've removed the following section from the article: === Born in Christchurch ===
 * Bradley Shaw — field hockey player
 * Hayden Shaw — field hockey player

reasoning:
 * 1) The fact of people being born here does not add anything to Christchurch. Such information can be of interest for small towns, but in a city it would be expected that a large number of notable people were born there.

Housing costs
An anonymous user added this to the Economy section:

The area faces a serious economic problem in plummeting housing affordability. Median house prices have escalated more than 100 percent in less than a decade, far ahead of the increase in incomes. Real estate economists blame regional land use planning policies (so-called "smart growth"), which have rationed land for development, with the predictable effect of raising house prices. Similar effects have been noted in Auckland, Australian urban areas, along with some markets in the United States (particularly Portland, Oregon and California urban areas).

These claims need sources to support them. They're not verifiable and they use weasel words. Wikipedia is not the place for original research, so please see What counts as a reputable publication?

Its easy to get housing sales figures from www.reinz.co.nz/ In June 1998 the median house price for Canterbury/Westland was $140,000 and in June 2008 it was $299,000. There was an article in Business South magazine (probably June 2008) that detailed Christchurch's policy of restricting the amount of land available for subdivision. The minimum wage is NZ$12 and hour as of April 2008 (from www.ers.dol.govt.nz/pay/minimum.html). Compare that with the Australian rates at www.safework.sa.gov.au/show_page.jsp?id=5116 Aust$13.74  and Aust$16.49 for casual.

Government subsidies are available for mortgages and rents which as an economist would release actually increases prices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.101.92.51 (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

From www.stats.govt.nz the average hourly earnings (for NZ) increased from $16.39 in 1997 to $22.63 in 2007.218.101.92.51 (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comparison with Belgium
I deleted the sentence which compared Canterbury to the size of Belgium. First, it's wrong: Canterbury is larger than Belgium. Secondly, even if it were right, it'd still be a meaningless comparison to most readers.

Another view from space
NASA had another nice space shot here: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_678.html showing the nearby Banks peninsula as well as Christchurch. &mdash; RJH (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Drive-by reworking
Hello all regulars here: Having seen a number of things to be improved here, I sort of got a bit unleashed, and reworked the whole article in many ways. Trying to follow it in one step is probably hopeless, as I moved too much around, and also rephrased quite a bit. To make it worse, in some steps I cut stuff out, but only inserted it again a step later.

But please do look at it without feeling like someone just 'messed' with your article. I think it is quite improved now, more sorted, some problems fixed, and I will continue during the next few days. Cheers, MadMaxDog 11:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms
I've moved the following paragraph from the article to here because it is inadequately referenced. I don't think Campbell Live saying that Christchurch has a reputation as whatever is very authoritative. Much of the material on Campbell Live is tabloid in nature. The rest of the paragraph is entirely unsourced and some of it is speculative.
 * Citizens of other New Zealand cities (as well as New Zealand media outlets) have publicly discussed Christchurch from a negative perspective. While this is most often for the purpose of light-heartedly jesting Christchurch locals with regard to sporting rivalries etc, is has more recently become the topic of more serious discussion. Amid racism controversies, a popular New Zealand current affairs show 'Campbell Live' has been quoted as saying that Christchurch has a reputation as New Zealand's most racist city . Other complaints include the difficulty of navigating Christchurch due to poor signage and lack of natural landmarks; whether or not this is an intentional act of the local city council to attract passers-through to the local economy is not known.

Are there better references available to document the reputation and other claims made, and is this material of value even if documented?

As a comparison, material about the reputation of various parts of Auckland has been removed in the past.- gadfium 23:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This survey for The Press while not comprehensive, suggests that attitudes in christchurch and auckland are pretty consistent (with possibly slightly more negative attitudes in Auckland). FWIW, I would have guessed the other way round, but it doesn't seem very notable either way.
 * As for the landmark thing, that's just an urban myth perpetuated by standup comedians joking that Christchurch became a city, after people failed to find their way out of the one-way system (which as an outsider to both cities, seems easier to fathom than Auckland's spaghetti junction). Good call on removing it I think. --Limegreen 00:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If that kind of argument were true, Hamilton would be empty by now! Got lost there so many times, and ended up heading out to the boondocks without a clue ;-) MadMaxDog 10:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to have a famous people from Christchurch section? It certainly gives the article the look of a small provincial town rather than a reasonable size city that would obviously produce a number of famous people. Perhaps only 3 or 4 genuinely famouse people (i.e. known interantionally for a good reason - charles upham perhaps?) would be better than every man and dog that has been on TV or swung a cricket bat. I think it would add a lot of class to the article if it went the way of 'born in christchurch' and was removed. User:Homesick_kiwi 16:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that notable people sections are unnecessary for larger cities. Indeed, I'm not convinced they add much to small towns either. However, I don't feel strongly enough about them to try to remove them, although I do remove names which don't appear to be sufficiently notable.- gadfium 19:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Water Purity
Maybe someone should add some information about the tap water purity I live in chch and know that it tastes alot better than all of the surrounding townships (except the for the ones that use the same water supply) I don't know much about it but my parents use to tell me it is the best in the world perhaps some one with some more knowledge about this should add it thanks Yellow Onion 07:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We'd need a citation from a reliable source, such as the Department of Health. However, good water is really to be expected in New Zealand - if you say the Christchurch quality is good then you should really say that in most New Zealand geography articles, which gets a bit boring. It might make more sense instead to add referenced material to those cities where the water quality is only marginal.- gadfium 19:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The thing that differentiates Christchurch water from most other towns is that the aquifer source is so pure that it is fed to the mains with no pre-treatment or chlorination. I believe that the Health Dept only gives it a "B" rating because it is untreated. The aquifers are under threat of overuse though, and their should be references on the Environment Cantrbury website. (Sorry, don't have time to go chasing them at the moment). dramatic 22:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, that is unusual (I think) and should go into the article with suitable refs.- gadfium 04:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that it is also artesian, further differentiating it from run of the mill NZ water supplies.--Limegreen 05:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * All quite interesting - had any luck finding refs? Ingolfson 10:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * found this http://www.ccc.govt.nz/Water/ Water Rating is Ba and not gone through any processing its straight from the artesian wells. and for people who haven't been to chch and tried the water it tastes the same as bottled spring/mineral water which is more expensive than petrol here. ive been to cape town south Africa about 11 years ago and the water was terrible but no worst than than places like Cheviot ( 1 1/2 drive from chch) and Hamner Springs (2 hours drive from chch) and i also have a thai friend who said it was "Heaven" so i would think it was unique enough have some thing on this page just my opinion though prehaps someone who has been around the world alot more could give us some comparisonYellow Onion 08:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Christchurch name
Zootland 01:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC) I've update the origin of the name Christchurch from volume one of the three-volume History of Canterbury, which cites the minutes of the Canterbury Association, which created the name.

CHCH is misssing from an interesting list of demonymsFeroshki 03:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This makes interesting reading on the origin of the names Avon, Canterbury, and Christchurch. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Christchurch industry
The original entry stated the new industry in Christchurch was developed by the University of Canterbury and the Christchurch Polytechnic. This is incorrect and I have amended it. Both Sir Angus Tait and Gil Simpson effectively dropped out of high school. Dennis Chapman served an apprenticeship at Tait's before the firm sent him to University of Canterbury engineering school. It is true that the university has enabled their early efforts to grow. The university especially has supplied a continuing flow of high class engineering and software graduates, and there is now fruitful synergy between the local tech industry and the university.

However, academics should not underplay the role non-graduates play in establishing new industry. Christchurch has its lesser versions of drop-out giants like Bill Gates. The world's armies of management lecturers have yet to disprove that entrepreneurship to a considerable degree is an aspect of personality.

Zootland 01:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I may have reverted something of this style (your addition talked about above) some way back? If I did so, It was not because I disagree with you (I have only a limited knowledge/opinion about it). However, if I remember it correctly, it was not referenced at all, while the older version had some refs or was generic enough to be semi-okay without refs. Ingolfson 07:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Deans Ave not Rolleston Ave
Editprotected As the article currently states "The area around this square and within the four avenues of Christchurch (Bealey Avenue, Fitzgerald Avenue, Moorhouse Avenue and Rolleston Avenue)" Rolleston Ave should infact be Deans Ave which was named after the Deans Brothers.
 * Can you reference that? Growing up in Christchurch, I was taught that the "Four Avenues" were all named after provincial superintendants, hence Rolleston. And thus Hagley Park is not within the "four avenues" dramatic (talk) 08:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this edit shouldn't be made until it can be sourced. Od Mishehu 08:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Found a reliable source supporting the status quo: (last item on the page) dramatic (talk) 08:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, since I think a City Council definition overrides what Te Ara says, I have changed both my mind and the article.dramatic (talk) 20:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit War
Note that inclusion of the Māori name is in accordance with Naming_conventions_(New_Zealand). dramatic (talk) 08:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Gee, sometimes I wonder what things you miss when you are on "low active" state on Wikipedia. Seems you miss the odd squabble too, which is good. Ingolfson (talk) 07:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Famous People section
Lists of Famous People simply don't work for large population centres - they are never complete, the criteria for inclusion are not clear, and in this case not one entry was referenced. It also contains inaccuracies - Lord Rutherford was associated at Christchurch (Early studies at Canterbury University College) but he is from Brightwater in Nelson. dramatic (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There are no equivalent sections with the Auckland and Wellington articles either and as such, I shall remove the 'Notable residents' section that has just been started again.  Schwede 66  17:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Across the project, these are standard. Take a gander.  Perhaps they were not five years ago, but they certainly are today.  Either -- if they are short -- within city articles.  Or, if they are large, as stand-alone lists.  See the stand-alone lists, for example the hundreds here ... which don't even take into account the embedded lists (such as this one).  As to two other cities not having it -- that's irrelevant.  Per "There is no deadline", and per "otherstuffexists."  The list should be restored, and added to -- it is the nature of all such lists that they are never complete.  Simply add to them.  There are country lists as well -- for virtually all countries, I would expect ... notable people from country x.  Most of them have the same "never complete" feature.  Even the one for New Zealand.  So that's obviously an irrelevant argument.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems particularly inappropriate to have a list of one person. Perhaps you could start a List of people from Christchurch, similar to the List of people from Wellington. However, you should reference each entry, and be prepared to justify why each person is added and why some people are not added. This would be a lot of work.- gadfium 20:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * To have a list article would be fine by me, but I am also wary of unreferenced entries (and have pruned that dreadfully unreferenced Wellington list of redlinks). By the way, you would certainly struggle to justify having Nathan Cohen (rower) included, as he was merely born in Christchurch, but didn't even grow up there.  Schwede 66  20:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) I've edited hundreds of lists of people. It is good practice to have a ref.  And I have no problem adding one.


 * But the rules are at the wp guideline wp:listpeople.  Which states (emphasis added):  "A person may be included in a list of people if all the following requirements are met:    The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement.... If a person in a list does not have a Wikipedia article about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to: a) establish their membership in the list's group; and b) to establish their notability ...."  And if you look at the tens of thousands of people in the lists of people at Category:Lists of people by nationality, it will become apparent to you that people take the rules of wp:listpeople to heart, and most entries do not have an independent ref if they have a wp article.  And the same is true of the stand-alone list of people from Wellington, referenced by Gadfium.


 * 2) Again -- based on my experience with hundreds of such lists -- a person is without question appropriate to such a list if they either were born there or lived there. The place of a person's birth is so important that it also is almost always reflected in the body of an article and in an ibox, and it qualifies them for inclusion is a category of people from x, and it typically leads to them being a citizen (at birth) of x.  It's completely standard to include people on such a list if they were born in the place.


 * 3) Any redlinked entries on such a list that lack appropriate refs certainly should be deleted.


 * 4) As to the number of people on such a list -- they typically start with one person or a few people. There is no deadline -- this is a basic tenet of the project; the same reason we allow for articles themselves to begin as stubs, rather than delete them because they are a bare incomplete stub.  One editor adds a name, a second adds more, and so on.  But I can add a couple more to make it less of a shock.


 * 5) When the list is of smaller size, it is appropriate to use embedded list format. Only when it is too long for an article do we migrate it to stand-alone list format.  That's common practice across the Project.


 * 6) There is no need to "justify why some people are not added." This is a volunteer project.  And there is no deadline.  Look at the hundreds of lists to which I pointed to you -- where do you see a requirement that an editor "justify why some (unnamed) people are not added"?  If a second editor wishes to add people who are notable and were born in or lived in a city -- they add it.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I had no idea that being born in a place is as important as you say. But if you edit those lists regularly, and your experience is that birth is good enough for inclusion, then so be it. Why don't you just start that list article? As you say, others will add to it. I myself have written (or significantly expanded) lists of Christchurch people, for example mayors or university governors.  Schwede 66  01:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I will be happy to start the list. But in my experience, when the list is short, we start with an embedded list.  See, for example, Mount Kisco, New York, or any number of such lists.  Only when it is lengthy do we switch to a stand-alone list.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

New Suburbs
There are quite a few new suburbs that have gone up int he past few years that haven't been added to this article. Such as Aidenfield and Milns Estate, if someone could update these it would be wonderful but I personally don't have the time to research all the missing suburbs and find out where they would go in that "clockwise" list. TheRabidMonkie (talk) 07:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The usual Māori name Ōtautahi is a shortened form of Te Whenua o Te Potiki-Tautahi – named for the seasonal dwelling of Ngāi Tahu chief Tautahi of Port Levy, on a bank of the Avon River, near to where the Barbadoes Street bridge now stands.[3]..

This part is confusing. Since when was Port Levy on the banks of the avon river? Port Levy is in Banks Peninsula, which is a distance away from the avon river, which runs through Christchurch. This sentence needs to be re written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.197.218 (talk) 05:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Christchurch City Council
Why does Christchurch City Council redirect to here? Surely an organisation such as this deserves its own page? The Auckland City Council has its own page... TallGuy (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Commonwealth Games Federation Logo.png
The image File:Commonwealth Games Federation Logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --16:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Resolved - image was removed from Commonwealth Games Host Cities. Franamax (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Temperature error needs fixing
"maximum temperatures in January ranging from 15 °C to 25 °C (59–77 °F) (often reaching 30 °C/86 °F or higher)".

If they reach 30 or higher then the top of the range is not 25. Nurg (talk) 06:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It may have been different terms (monthly mean vs daily for example), I've rewritten it. XLerate (talk) 10:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Second largest or third largest city in New Zealand?
The article states that the city is the "second-largest" in New Zealand. The population numbers are close, but doesn't Wellington have slightly more, making it the second largest? Eastgate (talk) 09:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see List of cities in New Zealand or the population reference (Table 3), which show the three most recent annual estimates from Statistics NZ for urban area population. XLerate (talk) 10:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Central City
In Template:Christchurch City, New Zealand, the central city is not listed as a separate suburb. What is listed is Christchurch, and that of course goes to the city as a whole. Can I suggest that: I would appreciate your thoughts. I suggest that this be discussed on the template talk page.Schwede66 (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Central City be added as a separate suburb of Christchurch, and
 * this replaces 'Christchurch' in the list of suburbs?
 * There's been little discussion on this so far, and I'll go ahead with setting up Christchurch Central City. If you have thoughts, please go to template talk page. Schwede66 (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is now done. Schwede66 (talk) 08:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Inner and outer suburbs and satellite towns
I'm rather dubious about the value of having lists of suburbs (clockwise at that) in the body of the article. I don't think that this adds anything to the quality of the page on Christchurch. The appropriate place, in my opinion, for such lists is in templates in the footer, and indeed those templates already exist for the suburbs, and the satellite towns could easily be added in the same manner. The lists could be replaced with a write up on the structure of the city. What do others think? Schwede66 (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There would be much more interest and value in having prose about the pattern of growth of the city, e.g. the era in which Papanui, Riccarton, Brighton etc were all outlying villages, the establishment and then partial loss of the green belt. (and probably the Rolleston plan).dramatic (talk) 08:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Which infobox?
The suburb articles all use Template:Infobox settlement (if they have an infobox). There is also the Template:Infobox New Zealand suburbs available, which would appear to be more suitable. Any thoughts on using the latter infobox instead for the Christchurch suburbs? Schwede66 (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Climate Chart
Here's Christchurch's climate chart, which I think shows the data in a far more visually direct and appealing way than the current table. Thoughts? - Gobeirne (talk) 09:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Much better! Please implement.  Schwede 66  09:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I like the new format too. It's more concise, and gives the same information both visually and as figures.- gadfium 01:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm getting somewhat sick of an IP (presumably one and the same person, but with a changing IP address) reverting the new weather chart every half day or so, instead of coming here and discussing the issue. Given that this problem is caused by an anonymous user, is semi-protection in order? Or is this always this user (e.g. these edits yesterday), but mostly editing while logged out?  Schwede 66  04:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Gadfium, for the semi-protection.  Schwede 66  20:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The uncooperative climate chart editor is back. And due to recent events, we have a good number of anons editing. So semiprotection would stop many useful additions, too. Could the climate section be a protected subpage that gets transcluded? That would at least be easier to restore, while not affecting other anons.  Schwede 66  15:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that would make much difference, since the anon could continue to change the Christchurch article to include their preferred chart directly. Undoing the edit is simple so long as there are no conflicting edits since.


 * Since this new format has been a success, in that all comments on this talk page are positive so far, should we consider moving other New Zealand city pages to it? A proposal on the New Zealand Wikipedian's noticeboard and/or WikiProject New Zealand would be a good start.- gadfium 21:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd be in favour of using this chart for other cities, too.  Schwede 66  03:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi just wondering why my climate change was reverted? I'm OK wiht the current one, but the change I made (I believe) makes it alot easier and larger to read. Colours help people to identify certain temps aswell as it would for precip. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.176.231 (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In short, it was reverted because the consensus is for the "climate chart", and until your post here, no one had attempted to argue the merits of the "weather box". I don't think either template is bad, but the use of colours to display information reduces accessibility for colour-blind people, or for those who print the article or view it on a monochrome device. Since the weather box also includes figures, this is not an overwhelming objection. However, the climate chart shows the figures graphically as well as in text, which makes the summer/winter differences very obvious without relying on colour. Primarily, I prefer the climate chart because it is more compact. However, it does lack some information that the weather box includes: annual figures and sunshine hours. There have been proposals that these be added, see Template talk:Climate chart, but I am not aware of anyone working on this.- gadfium 00:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * An anon is messing with climate data again. Not sure that it's the same problem editor as before, but this person has been repeatedly warned about making up climate data, and blocked a couple of times.  Schwede 66  19:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I also think the weatherbox is necessary (perhaps in addition with the climate graph). The weatherbox is more aligned with similar pages such as Auckland and international cities such as London- it makes it easier to compare climate data between locations. It also allows other vital statistics such as sunshine hours to be displayed. The weatherbox could be positioned collapsed at the bottom as to not take up as much room.(Hugho226 (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC))

I am almost certain the record high temperatures for the city are wrong (at least in winter.) The temperatures get higher than what is listed. I would like to see a separate source for the maximum and minimum temperatures that have been added. 119.224.80.253 (talk) 09:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for photo from Canty/Chch editors
Hi all - our article on the Nor'west arch could seriously use a photo...and judging by the idiot wind blowing hot through Dunedin today there's a chance that there's a good opportunity for one from one of our Cantabrian editors. Any chance? Grutness...wha?  23:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Will that do?  Schwede 66  07:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah! excellent! Cheers. Grutness...wha?  07:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Have added a night shot.  Schwede 66  08:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Antipodal city
It is incorrectly stated that A Coruña, Spain, is Christchurch's antipodal, but it is about 90 km off. The correct antipodal city is Foz, Spain. (According to Google Earth). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.190.107.34 (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Infobox and population
Could someone please add the population (and hopefully also thus the population density) to the infobox? I would, but I'm scared of ruining the formatting.FrFintonStack (talk) 02:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It was already there, someone had just accidentally commented out some sections of the infobox when using a cleanup tool. Reinstated. ChiZeroOne (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Infobox image
I'd like to suggest that we use this photo as the lead image. In my opinion, it's much nicer than what we currently have. That said, some people may prefer not to have a b&w image. Feedback, please.  Schwede 66  05:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I prefer the current photo, with the wider view, clear sky, snow capped mountains and colour. I think the norm for larger cities is a montage, like Auckland, New York City, London etc. XLerate (talk) 07:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Earthquakes
It might be a good idea to start thinking about reducing the information on the earthquakes under history. I do think they should get a reasonable mention, but moving most of the information to History of the Canterbury Region (where they are currently not even mentioned) with a summary here could be a good start. AIR corn (talk) 06:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Trimmed the information here focussing on the February quake. All the previous prose has been transferred to the   History of the Canterbury Region page. AIR corn  (talk) 05:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've also just done some trimming. -Snori (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The earthquake on 22 Feb wasn't an aftershock of September, but a separate quakeJenny wren nz (talk) 22:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 22 Feb was an aftershock *GNS *More from GNS (T k (talk) 00:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC))

Secondary schools
I've reverted the amendments to the secondary school section. Whilst some of the edits were a clear improvement, I can't see the sense in removing all the wikilinks. I have invited the editor to discuss their rationale for the changes.  Schwede 66  18:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Schooling.
I edited the schooling section as the way the schools were discussed indicated that many were "public school" in the English tradition. Although this might be accurate the fact that a number of these school are now state integrated schools is significant. State integrated schools are run and financed completely differently to Independent schools which the original text had them aligned with. The changes I made indicate that Christchurch has the three types of schools that exist within NZ State; State integrated and Independent. Was not my intention to remove the Wikilinks, usually they just reappear.

Independent Schools of NZ website Education in NZ Wiki Danibath 17.10.11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danibath (talk • contribs) 22:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Montage for infobox
Nice work on the montage for the infobox by User:Radiojoe329. Two suggestions:
 * Can we use a better photo of the Cathedral?
 * These montages should definitely be stored on Wikimedia Commons, rather than the English Wikipedia, so that they are available for other Wikiprojects.

This category has the Cathedral photos, and this is where the montage should be stored. If any of this is baffling, leave a note here and I'll explain further / help.  Schwede 66  04:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure I can use a better photo, does anyone have any suggestions? I will upload it in Wikimedia Commons once I put the new photo on. Radiojoe329 (talk) 08:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe this one, this one or this one; probably depends a bit on what it looks like after cropping to fit the space. Or this one (just found it on flickr).  Schwede 66  04:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggested rename of Christchurch Central City article
It has been suggested that Christchurch Central City be moved to Central Christchurch. See Talk:Christchurch_Central_City. Nurg (talk) 03:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

New infobox montage images
I was wondering if anyone would be willing to make a new montage for Christchurch's infobox. I have a few new, high quality images that I would love to see added:

Can someone please fix the camelcase?
Being a resident of Christchurch, I feel insulted to note the camelcase used so frequently here. I'd like to fix it, but I really don't have the time to comb through the article and fix it. If anyone has a currently unused bot, could they please use it to correct "ChristChurch" to "Christchurch"? The Anonymous Superior (talk) 08:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The cathedral name is ChristChurch, with two capitals. See ChristChurch Cathedral, Christchurch.- gadfium 09:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Christchurch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080411172745/http://www.ccc.govt.nz/Maps/WardMaps/BanksPeninsula.pdf to http://www.ccc.govt.nz/Maps/WardMaps/BanksPeninsula.pdf

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Christchurch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150204174406/http://www.ccc.govt.nz/cityleisure/artsculture/artinthecity/statues/thebridgeofremembrance.aspx to http://www.ccc.govt.nz/cityleisure/artsculture/artinthecity/statues/thebridgeofremembrance.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131106162337/http://www.ccc.govt.nz/thecouncil/policiesreportsstrategies/transportplan/index.aspx to http://www.ccc.govt.nz/thecouncil/policiesreportsstrategies/transportplan/index.aspx
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Study/9077/hiphoptimeline.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Lead section
As someone who lives outside New Zealand (although I did live for a time in Christchurch) I must point out that the lead section of this article has a glaring omission. It is puzzling why the lead includes a sentence on a piece of trivia about sign language but entirely avoids reference to the devastating and deadly 2011 earthquakes. I understand that locals might like to the put the past behind them and accentuate the positive, but it is a simple fact that when people overseas refer to Christchurch in conversation there is almost always a reference to the deadly quakes and the city's ongoing recovery. Today it is one of the most notable facts about Christchurch, and the very visible signs of the disaster that remain in the city attest to that. Ignoring it in the lead section has all the appearances of censorship or whitewashing, whether this is intended or not. A single sentence in the lead would suffice. BlackCab ( TALK ) 23:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , I concur with you. Why don't you give it a go; nuke trivia and add the real important stuff.  Schwede 66  23:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , You are correct. I look forward to seeing some changes.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christchurch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110223092531/http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3468575g.html to http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3468575g.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Most English City outside of England. Garden City Narrative
Perhaps Wikipedia articles are necessarily brief but there seems to be an awful lot missing in this article. Baby boomers will wonder what happened to the Christchurch they grew up in?Yonk (talk) 01:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on content to include
I reverted edits and  because I don't believe the content added has any importance or notability for inclusion in this article. However another user User:StuRat has reverted my reverts and accused me of edit warring. I requested the user to discuss the content first, which has not been done. I feel a consensus from other members is necessary in order to assess whether it is suitable for inclusion. My opinion is that it is a simple case of WP:NOTNEWS and oppose to it being included in the article. Ajf773 (talk) 06:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you are correct. In my view, those additions are high on the list of non-encyclopedic trivia. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Christchurch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130901090511/http://resources.ccc.govt.nz/files/ResidentialDevelopment-OccupiedDwellings-docs.pdf to http://resources.ccc.govt.nz/files/ResidentialDevelopment-OccupiedDwellings-docs.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081225155739/http://www.niwa.co.nz/edu/resources/climate/maxairtemp to http://www.niwa.co.nz/edu/resources/climate/maxairtemp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131204163836/http://resources.ccc.govt.nz/files/HistoricGrowth-PopulationSummary-docs.pdf to http://resources.ccc.govt.nz/files/HistoricGrowth-PopulationSummary-docs.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070308094318/http://www.stats.govt.nz/census/2001-census-data/2001-regional-summary/default.htm to http://www.stats.govt.nz/census/2001-census-data/2001-regional-summary/default.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Christchurch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6AuTPnpjj?url=http://www.stuff.co.nz/4688231/Large-quake-strikes-Christchurch to http://www.stuff.co.nz/4688231/Large-quake-strikes-Christchurch
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110303142238/http://rebuildchristchurch.co.nz/architects-begin-to-look-at-rebuild-of-christchurch to http://rebuildchristchurch.co.nz/architects-begin-to-look-at-rebuild-of-christchurch
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081004142744/http://www.southernopera.com/content/about/default.aspx to http://www.southernopera.com/content/about/default.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081014035741/http://www.christchurchpark.co.nz/history.html to http://www.christchurchpark.co.nz/history.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Population
It seems rather confusing to give the population of the urban area as 358,000, then give the population of the administrative district, but further down the page have the line "The population is expected to grow to 358,000 by the year 2021". Which population? - And I'd like to see the basis of the first 'Urban Area' figure. If that is based on the Regional Council area it is clearly wrong. The 316,000 figure agrees with the census, and their measurement area includes Prebbleton, Templeton and Kaiapoi, but Excludes Lyttelton and the Harbour bays area. This seems pretty close to the entire urban area to me. dramatic 23:23, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The urban area population is based on the Statistics New Zealand definition of the Christchurch Urban Area. Statistics New Zealand defines boundaries for all urbanised areas in New Zealand with more than 1000 people. I'd like to go through and cite all those figures but I need to figure out a way of doing it that doesn't take up too much space. Ben Arnold 03:05, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * But that is where the 316224 figure comes from : - which if you check the map covers all significant urban areas which might be classed as Christchurch. I see that both figures in the table have now been inflated (if these are 2004 estimates, then that should be noted), making the phrase about population being projected to grow (shrink) to 358000 in 16 years even more contradictory. Note that most Wikipedia articles on NZ towns and cities show only census figures, not current estimates (which need updating too often). dramatic 09:48, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah you're right they're 2004 figures. I updated them yesterday from the 2003 figures. I agree the year should be noted as well as citing SNZ. I think there needs to be a concise way to do it though, and I haven't figured out what that is. As for how regularly we update the statistics, I am happy to update the population figures for the main urban areas and regional councils every year (maybe even territorial authorities). One of the advantages of Wikipedia is that it's a dynamic encyclopedia so the content can be more up-to-date. Ben Arnold 23:37, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

According to this Wikipedia article, as of June 2011 Wellington has a bigger population (393,400) than Christchurch (380,900). So Christchurch is the third largest urban area of NZ. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * However according to this article, Christchurch is the second largest urban area of NZ. If you want to broaden the area to include Upper Hutt, you may as well include Rolleston, Rangiora or Lincoln into Christchurch too.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.79.23.130 (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Underneath where the urban population is provided, there should be a metro population as both the Wellington and Auckland pages include this. Unfortunately, the definition of this in those articles is less clear or consistent.

Christchurch mosque shootings
has removed the 'terrorist attack' heading. If there is no objection, I will restore it. the Attack is the main reason that Christchurch is leading world news today; and appears to be much more noteworthy than the Port Hills fires with which it now shares a heading.
 * Saying that people died from a terrorist attack (as it is currently worded) is euphemistic & not how native speakers of any version of English would describe it. Jim Michael (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest saying that "fifty-one people were killed in two consecutive terrorist attacks" isn't quite correct. The last person to die succumbed to their injuries seven weeks after the attack. Is there a better way to phrase that without implying that there were 51 deaths on the day?  Schwede 66  04:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "died due to", "died as a result of", "died following" AIRcorn (talk) 04:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Killed is better wording, because it's more specific & accurate. The sentence should be reorganised to say that Tarrant killed 51 people on 15 Mar 19. That's correct, because he did all the killing on that day, even though not all 51 died then. Jim Michael (talk) 08:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Masjid Al noor.jpg
 * Have swapped the file.  Schwede 66  00:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

History section
The section headings are not ideal and I suggest changes and welcome comment. Ideally we should add time periods as in many other city articles. The term "Modern history" means more than just anything from about 1900, and the shootings are really current affairs, not history. Should we create sub headings of "Pre-European"; 1840-1945; 1945-2000; 2001-present, with further subsections for matters that greatly influenced the city, such as the quakes. These dates are fairly arbitrary and open to debate but point is still dividing up by time periods. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's an alternative thought: Christchurch has enough history for a stand-alone article. Several books have been written about Christchurch history. Maybe if we work on that article first. Once that's done, it becomes easier to have a summary article here.  Schwede 66  02:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I like both suggestions. How about Roger 8 Roger, you start by adding the headings to the page, and when/if the new page A History of Christchurch is set up we can move content from the main page to the history page? Somej (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Also has Christchurch reached the point where it needs a 'disasters' section? In count of people directly affected, we have the main earthquake, the attacks, and the Ballantynes fire. Somej (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

bold edits
Added an intro sentence on the attacks to the first section. Regrouped history slightly, and consolidated the Antarctic sections as well. Hope this points towards a better structure that will help organise what is becoming quite a large page. Somej (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * On reflection, I like the idea of a new article on Chch history. If nobody then objects I will try to set it up. The idea of a Chch disasters section sounds interesting. I will see if a section will neatly fit into the new history article. My first thought though is that it will not fit. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Recentism?
About the recent edits - I tend to agree with Schwede66 that recent events are not minor and would certainly stand get through the 10YT, meaning they should be included in an account of the city's history. However, I do think the section is heavily weighted towards contemporary events. This is a problem afflicting very many WP articles on places. Many editors seem to think that if something happened outside their memory or that of their parents then it did not happen or its importance is diminished. Even if an editor does not have that view, sources of past events are significantly less easy to find which makes only compounds the over weighting of contemporary events. Rather than say that this article if too focused on contemporary events, I think it is better described it as lacking detail of say, pre-1945 events. I think it would be useful not have sub-sections for narrowly defined contemporary time periods. I also prefer not to use the term 'modern history' when contemporary is meant. Better still would be 'Post 2000' or similar to avoid ambiguity. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, R8R. I like your thinking that it's not a case of recentism, but rather that there are earlier gaps. My thoughts:
 * Māori settlement – this section ought to be expanded
 * European settlement – this focuses on the first two or three decades of settlement. This history is relatively well known and is detailed enough. What happened post 1870 is glossed over.
 * 1900–2000 – very skinny.
 * Modern history – detailed enough.


 * What's missing? Municipal amalgamations (that's maybe an interesting topic in itself deserving of a standalone article) and population increases (closely related; population for what area?). The 1866 rates revolt spearheaded by Henry Wynn-Williams. The revolt itself is maybe not that notable, but it resulted in a 20-year delay of Christchurch getting a sewage system. It would have thus resulted in the indirect death of dozens or maybe even hundreds of people (I suspect that this is not well known). Architectural trends coming from Christchurch (Benjamin Mountfort's Gothic Revival architecture and a good hundred years later brutalism championed by Miles Warren). Transport needs a broader mention (we once had the second-largest tram network in Australasia) including air travel and airports, plus the ferry to Wellington. New Zealand’s first telegraph line (1862). Education should get a mention (colleges and high schools, the university). Industry, and it disappearing. A paragraph on media. There's probably heaps more. Bring on (more extreme) social distancing and I'll get the history books off my bookshelf.  Schwede 66  20:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced climate Chart
The chart in Geography section doesn't cite any sources. It may be removed if no reference is provided in the future. PAper GOL (talk) 06:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)