Talk:Christchurch/Archive 2

Inclusion of Kaiapoi in lead
I think the inclusion of Kaiapoi's history in the lead is undue, it's not located within Christchurch and has no real impact on the city itself. Inclusion in the general history should also not be included unless a link between the early Maori Kaiapoi settlement and the early European Christchurch settlement can be established, it's certainly possible and likely that trade occurred between the two. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I disagree... Kaiapoi and the others mentioned in the lede are major "satellite towns" of Christchurch. There was a pā there and they had a track that leads down to another settlement in modern-day Christchruch. (That gives context on why Māori later settled in Christchurch) Alexeyevitch (talk) 03:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I meant the history of Kaiapoi.
 * >That gives context on why Māori later settled in Christchurch
 * And is there evidence of this in a reliable source? That'd qualify for inclusion into the history section but I fail to see why the lede for the article on Christchurch should mention the history of another town. Auckland's lead doesn't mention the pas at One Tree Hill or Mangere Mountain nor the early conflict that lead to Ngati Whatua Orakei taking control of the Auckland area, even their donation of land to found the city isn't mentioned. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Auckland's lede is irrelevant to Christchurch's... Kaiapoi's Māori history is relevant to Christchurch history - I've said my reasoning before. Keep it in the lede. Alexeyevitch (talk) 04:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There needs to be evidence of Maori migration from Kaiapoi moving into Christchurch into the article, the relevance is not established in the article currently. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is one reference that is already in the article: . Surely there's more references about the Māori walking track... I prefer to focus on other articles at presence, but if someone would like to add content about that then go for it. Alexeyevitch (talk) 04:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Traumnovelle's first post is politely correct. That paragraph in the lead should not be there so I removed it. The first inhabitants of Christchurch, bar a few in the advanced guard came on the first four ships. Before then Christchurch did not exist so a paragraph in the lead about what was there on the land beforehand is, how can I say it, not necessary. What was happeningat Kaiapoi is even less relevant. That detail can be added to a small section in the article about the period before 1850 when Europeans arrived to establish the city. Trade with Maori at the Kaiapoi pa can also fit, with correct weight, ie, a phrase not even a sentence, in a subsection in the article below. If you want all this off-topic stuff in the article, before it even gets to the point of going into the lead, it should be raised here first. Alexeyevitch, there is so much that can be researched and added about Christchurch and its people so why don't you do some research and try and improve this article instead of focusing on one topic of only moderate relevance to Christchurch. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Was it really necessary to delete ALL of the Māori content in the lede? it should be kept... if no reply, then I'll restore most of it. (pre-colonization Māori inhabitants of the Chch region is totally relevant.) Alexeyevitch (talk) 08:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say that they came to Christchurch via that route, regardless it's been removed. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Furthermore - it's still relevant to Ngāi Tahu and this article alike... I have no idea why Roger removed other content about the local iwi and hapū in chch pre-European colonization (He removed this content with no explanation) Alexeyevitch (talk) 08:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This isn't the Ngai Tahu article. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I never said it was. Futhermore - for example: Auckland, Dunedin, and Hamilton have some form of Māori content in their lede... Roger, removed all Māori content in the lede for no reason. (except the Kaiapoi stuff, on which he did give his reasonings on why he removed that) Alexeyevitch (talk) 08:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * In your own words "Auckland's lede is irrelevant to Christchurch's".
 * But in all seriousness, I only thought Kaiapoi needn't be mentioned. Early Maori settlement of what became Christchurch should be included in the lead like how Rome mentions (much more briefly, but hey it's Rome) the pre-Roman settlements. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I certainly did. Secondly, I restored content deleted without explaination (not content entirely related to Kaiapoi). Alexeyevitch (talk) 08:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Cities everywhere have a brief mentionin in WP articles about the land and what happened on it before the city was established. It's a sort of background warmer before the real info starts and is sometimes interesting (eg Romulus and Remus). That brevity is all because what happened before the city existed is not about the city. If there is a connection, that will be developed in the main part of the article in how it affects the city. For chc I suggest a much better pre-city bit of information to mention than a Maori pa in Kaiapoi and the names of various chiefs is the fact that the land was a swamp. That has a clear link to the city that was built on it. Not just the immediate consequences of the earthquakes post 2011 but the way the city was constructed before then. And the history of why the site was chosen and the necessary drainage around 1850. If there is any mention of pre-1850 in the lead I think it should be that, ie the site was marshland that had to be drained. But before that, there should be a fuller explanation in the article below. About removing the whole paragraph - I suggest the bits that should be kept with their sources can be collected up and put somewhere in the main article, but not in the lead. Getting that detail back is easy. I'm sorry to be blunt and dismissive of what you added but it keeps happening. Is there a group agreement that you should be the one to go around adding Maori history and Maori words to as many articles as possible? Like Turnagra has also been doing? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * There will need to be a consensus for that... IMO Māori content should be kept in the lede. Alexeyevitch (talk) 10:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Economy section needs significant rework
Reference to the Infometrics Regional Economic Profile 2023 for Christchurch City indicates that the Economy section needs a complete review, with significant new content added and out-of-date content removed. The text currently claims that Farming is the economic core of Christchurch, but this is not supported by the Infometrics report. Some of this content may more be relevant to the article Canterbury Region. Marshelec (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * It'd probably be best to change 'always' to 'historically', although I presume to change that a new source would be needed that states that otherwise it's synthesis from the outdated OED report and the modern infometrics data. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Suburb in wrong city
In the Outer Suburbs is listed Highfield but when I click on the article I end up in a suburb of Timaru. Google maps also put Highfield in Timaru. DOPmanNZ (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)


 * That refers to a previously proposed subdivision that hasn’t happened yet. As it’s a name given to it by developers rather than the area being known as such, I suggest we should delete the entry for now.  Schwede 66  17:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Spelling words
I made a change today and used the word Maori twice. user:Alexeyevitch later added macrons and in his edit summary accused me of deliberately not adding them, which follows an earlier talk page comment saying it was disruptive by me not to use macrons. I think you should change what you say, Alexeyevitch (and preferably your thinking too). The spelling of that word is m.a.o.r.i. with or without diacritics or capitals, which adapt the letter they don't create a new letter (in English at least). A large percentage of sources, probably the majority, don't add a macron. The word in many dictionaries does not have a macron. If you want to add a macron that is up to you, I've said more than enough about macrons already. You cannot accuse editors of being disruptive because they write something you don't like, especially when it is clearly correct. If you and a bunch of others have decided that words must have macrons that is a flawed consensus decision. It isn't solving a problem of any sort, it doesn't clarify anything, it just reflects the personal preference of you and some others. That is unlike consensus of using UK/US spelling, or calling the city Derry and the county Londonderry, which are practical compromise solutions to ongoing editorial disputes. This is the English wikipedia open to everyone. You don't own all the articles with a loose connection to New Zealand. I've made this comment above the section below so as not to distract from it - the one about tidying up this Christchurch article. What I removed was most of the stuff in that pre-1850 period which, like in the lead, is off-topic and/or not balanced and not properly sourced. Even the first part was not what the CCC library source said anyway. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * What does this have to do with Christchurch? —Panamitsu (talk) 07:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Nothing, it's got to do with accusations-made on this article-of supposedly disruptive edits being made to this article. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Kia ora, the word "Māori" is correctly spelled in English with a macron. The word "Māori" is a loanword from the Māori language. Historic sources often do not include the macron purely for the practical reason that typesetting a macron (even on a computer) used to be difficult. Where they are missing, they should be added.

-- David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * David Palmer, you are wrong. You do not understand what a loanword is otherwise you would not make such a statement. Before you giving an opinion on the spelling of that word in English, you first have to understand how languages work and evolve. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, the thing you complain about has happened to English several times already and will continue to happen through the history of the language. You don't speak Anglish. During the Norman Conquest, which lasted several hundred years, the UK government spoke French instead of English, which is where a large portion of English words have come from, such as "government", "parliament", "council", "restaurant", etc. Language does in fact evolve this way, and as mentioned in the 2020 RfC, macrons are used more often than they are omitted (10/11 magazines). —Panamitsu (talk) 03:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Honestly I think it is completely laughable to claim the word “Māori” is not borrowed from the Māori language. The dictionary entry I referenced literally describes the etymology as “A borrowing from Māori.” To further quote that source:
 * > The form Māori reflects the standard spelling of the word in Māori, where the macron indicates a long vowel (compare also the form Maaori). It is the preferred form in present-day New Zealand English, and becoming the predominant form in other varieties of English when referring to the people or the language.
 * I don’t know how much more obvious this can get. The word is borrowed and is therefore a loanword. -- David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 04:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @David Palmer, When have I ever said Maori isn't a loan word? Once again, please, check your facts and we can then have a discussion. In the meantime feel free to carry on laughing.
 * @Panamitsu, This issue is not about the evolution of English. Loanwords assimilate/change to fit into English: English doesn't change to fit around a loanword that keeps to its original form, otherwise English would be full of different letters and scripts. The word Maori was assimilated into English 200 years ago and very easily because there was nothing to change, no script. There is no need to assimilate/change that word any more, it fits perfectly well into English. What is happening now in NZ is that the te reo foreign word (with a macron) is being used instead of the English loanword, (without a macron). English is now often using the foreign word (Māori) instead of its own loanword (Maori). That is perfectly possible to do. Problems arise when we try to treat that foreign word as a loanword, such as saying the word is being spelled wrong without a macron - it depends what form you are talking about. If you are writing the loanword then no, without a macron is correct; if talking about the foreign/te reo word then yes, a macron is required. Another problem is David Palmer's comment above, in which he assumes Maori and Māori are the same form, ie both a loanword, and then is unable to understand why Māori is actually a foreign word. If you want to bring in language evolution, it could be said that what is happening is that English is evolving to start using the original foreign word when an assimilated loanword exists. If I choose not to write Māori but to write Maori instead I am doing nothing wrong, I am simply using the English loanword instead of the foreign word. There is absolutely no reason to distinguish between the two forms: they both look and mean exactly the same, except for the macron, and there is no confusion in reading the word, with or without a macron. (To qualify that comment - there is no reason to use a macron unless you have an ulterior motive, such as the planned promotion of te reo.) In NZ there are very many examples where these Maori-origin words are mentioned and the form, loanword or foreign-word, is not distinguished and is therefore used interchangeably at randomly. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have checked my facts with a subject-matter expert on linguistics and am still not sure what you think I got wrong. If we’re talking past each other somehow then we can drop the loanword issue, it isn’t hugely relevant.
 * I also checked with another subject-matter expert on formal and technical writing (and English in general) who was of the opinion that not including the macron in the word Māori today would be considered unacceptable in a professional setting, and would be corrected by any professional copyeditor using modern New Zealand English. This matches my own feeling on the subject; my personal perspective is that when I see the word (or any other Māori word) written without a macron I assume the author is either lazy or ignorant of modern New Zealand English, neither of which I wish to be true of kiwis editing Wikipedia.
 * Back to the issue at hand, you have elsewhere said you deliberately do not use macrons and leave it to the macron police to come by and add them. Fair enough, it is technically (barely) correct English. I also think it was perfectly fair and valid for AlexeyVeitch to note that in their edit fixing your mistakes. If you use other humans as your own personal autocorrect, do not be surprised when the autocorrect sometimes grumbles back at you. -- David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Cloventt and what Panamitsu said earlier. Macrons are common in New Zealand English, and consensus was made a few years earlier was to use them in NZ articles and the word "Māori". I think there's nothing wrong with adding a note that Roger is not adding it.
 * I am assuming good faith but... it would not be OKAY if I started using the American spelling "aluminum", "colonization" or "kilometer" in New Zealand articles because I simply don't like the British spelling. That is similar to what Roger has been doing with macrons because he doesn't like them or dosen't know how to type them on a keyboard what he said earlier. Consensus was made to use them when needed in mainspace. Alexeyevitch (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I try to add macrons on main space pages when I need to, but despite the vast majority of mainstream media sources using them the vast majority of the populace don't. I wouldn't have a clue on if there's a macron in Waimauku, Kumeu, Kaukapapa, etc., nor where to place one if there is. When I am writing articles I almost always use British/New Zealand English spellings simply because it's my default and what I am used to; I don't stop to think about it.
 * What you're referring to is making a WP:POINT, omitting macrons because you don't know/forget about them is just a simple mistake. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Economy section modified - but more is needed
I have made a start at improving the Economy section. I retained almost all the original "Farming" section but changed the tense and it is now presented as history. More fresh content is needed, to better describe the transition that has occurred over time, the rise of new industries, and the reduced reliance on servicing agriculture in the wider Canterbury Region. The problem is where to find good sources. I will keep looking, but more help would be great. It may also be appropriate to cull some of the content about agriculture in the Canterbury Region, and/or transfer it to the article Canterbury Region. Feedback please :)___Marshelec (talk) 23:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I completely agree, information about agriculture in Canterbury could be reduced where it isn't directly relevant to Christchurch. I would suggest:
 * Move the "Economic profile in 2023" to the start of the section
 * Rename the "History" section to "Agriculture"
 * Remove basically everything after the first paragraph of that section, but keep the mention of agribusinesses within Ōtautahi that support regional agriculture, plus maybe export via Lyttelton. (A lot of wool used to be exported through there)
 * Also, the new section is excellent, thank you for adding it. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Restructure history section
Now might be a good time to restructure the sub-headings. Separating it by centuries is a common IMO lazy practice throughout WP. A better divide should be by the dates of major turning points. Some dates that spring to mind are 1859-1876/provincial govt; 1867/Lyttelton tunnel opens; 22-02-2011/earthquake and there are other key dates. What is currently in the 21stC. section is not important enough, not even the mosque killings. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree. There also needs to be work done copyediting the section as there currently is not proper use of paragraphs. There also still may be text worth removing, as I've just removed a sentence about the Spanish flu. —Panamitsu (talk) 11:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the pandemic death toll in the city is worth mentioning. But it only needs the briefest of mentions as part of a narrative about what happened in the city during that time period. You’re completely right, the lack of paragraphs and proper narrative structure is a problem. An otherwise disconnected sentence (like the one on the flu) can fit much better as part of a proper narrative flow. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The influenza epidemic does need to be included, as 462 deaths is notable by any measure. A link could also made to Bromley Cemetery (as the majority of the victims were buried there) and the Nurses' Memorial Chapel (as two nurses who died are commemorated there ; the article doesn't say that yet ). The Christchurch Library article also points out that Christchurch was better prepared and thus had a lower death rate, although that might be better dealt with in a new article Spanish flu in New Zealand.  Schwede 66  21:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion.
 * I assume when you say the mosque massacre isn’t important enough, you mean it isn’t important enough for a heading? If so I agree.
 * That event should definitely get at least a brief mention somewhere though, it was extremely significant. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Mosques - yes, I mean it has not had an impact on Christchurch which is the measure to use. In simple terms on the death count, the Spanish flu ranks much higher - many more deaths against a smaller population. I think covid can be treated in the same way as the mosque killings - it hasn't had any real effect on chc. What might appear to be a huge event at the time, due often to media coverage, is really not much more than passing news: here today gone tomorrow. About covid, IMO if there is anything notable it is that chc, and nz, did not have any lock down for a year while the rest of the world was stuck indoors and dying en masse Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

The lists of suburbs - what to do ?
My opinion is that the current presentation of the lists of suburbs is tedious for the reader, and provides negligible benefit for the space it occupies on the page. I am also uncertain about whether "inner suburb" or "outer suburb" has any reliable defined meaning. I seek feedback on options (or additional suggestions):

Option 1: Delete all existing lists, add a brief overview paragraph and include a link to the relevant category, where all suburbs are already listed. eg

Option 2: Delete all existing lists, but create a new article: List of suburbs of Christchurch. The main content of the list article would be a presentation of all the suburbs in a sortable table, initially presented in alphabetic order. An initial suggestion for attributes to be included in the table is given below.

List of suburbs
Any such list article largely duplicates the existing category. The infoboxes of suburb articles include a population count, but I hesitate to include this in the proposed table for the list article option, because of the increased maintenance requirement this would create. Overall, I am uncertain about the benefits for the reader of a list article. Some benchmarks are List of suburbs of Canberra, and List of Cape Town suburbs, but these are not inspiring. The article List of suburbs of Auckland appears to have a somewhat different genesis, possibly related to the integration into the "super-city". The "Satellite towns" section also requires some thought. My initial suggestion is to retain this, because it is of interest, and is not particularly large. Feedback on the options please. Marshelec (talk) 02:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I'd say just stick to the suburb and information useful for the reader trying to find it like the geographical area/local government, information like coordinates and area is better off being on the suburb article itself. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A benefit of including co-ordinates in template form is that a reader can click on the link to immediately see a map showing where the suburb is located. If there is going to be a list article, then I think this is worth retaining. In comparison, the area is of no real help, and is in the individual suburb article infobox anyway. However, I am still not 100% convinced that a list article is worth having. Perhaps a link to an Open Street Map visualisation showing all suburb names would be better ? Marshelec (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Try this link: . Provided we retain the link to en:Category:Suburbs of Christchurch, then I am inclined to think that a visualisation is actually more useful than a new/separate list article. Marshelec (talk) 03:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't use OpenStreetMaps, it's like Wikipedia but for maps. I've noticed in Auckland there are non-existent suburbs. Why not just link to the Cantebury council's official map? https://mapviewer.canterburymaps.govt.nz/ Traumnovelle (talk) 03:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Correct, OpenStreetMap is user-generated content and therefore not a suitable source for citing material. But I think it would be OK to include a Template:Mapbox or something similar of Christchurch suburbs, which would use OSM for the layer and we add our own markers for suburbs.
 * Alternatively, Canterbury Maps is actually under an open license (CC-BY 4.0), so we are free to take screenshots and include them. We can use that as a visualisation of suburbs of Christchurch, perhaps with annotations linking to the relevant articles on each suburb. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles make extensive use of maps sourced from Open Street Map, and I am aware of initiatives to increase integration. For the present, I propose to add an Open Street Map via an Infobox frame. The suburb names are represented well._Marshelec (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Side note: the suburbs list say "clockwise", such as "(clockwise, starting north of the city centre)". Initially I was a bit confused about what this means. Does it mean that the suburbs go more south further down the list? I can't think of a use for this, and if a reader was to come looking for a suburb, I assume he/she would expect it to be in alphabetical order. So whatever happens to the list, I think we should sort it alphabetically. —Panamitsu (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If there is to be a list I think it should be very simple in alphabetical order, much like the notable people lists. Added to each suburb should be its general loction, ie, NW, coastal, hill, directly south of the centre/four aves, and a few words of general description such 'built around an industrial core', newly created post-earthquake. The ariticle on each suburb will have more detail. Christchurch suburbs are notable for being non-definable so any attempt to define them is doomed to failure. Creating template lists with all sorts of data is pointless except in that it gives someone something to do. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, maybe we're wrong. Toitū te Whenua actually does maintain an "official" list of suburbs in Christchurch as part of their "Suburbs and Localities" dataset. A quick look at the dataset shows that it accounts for some of the vagueness, with some suburbs (such as Papanui and Northcote) having overlapping areas. This entire dataset is CC-BY 4.0 licensed so we can copy information from it as we like. They apparently maintain this for the benefit of the postal system. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * My revised proposal is to remove the lists of suburbs, include the template link to en:Category:Suburbs of Christchurch, add in a sentence or two of introduction, and also add an infobox containing an expandable map. Are there sufficiently strong reasons to create a new list article, when the category provides that same list ? I think that a map showing the location of suburbs is probably more useful than describing them as being east or west etc. Marshelec (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A map cannot define the exact location of a chc suburb, with only a very few exceptions. That is one of the main reasons why chc suburbs are not suited to being categorised. A general location is the best that can be done. Half the people in chc can 'choose' which suburb they live in depending on which best suits their need at any given time. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, I accept that (and experienced that during my youth in Christchurch anyway). However, all the individual suburb articles I have looked at so far have a coordinate and link to Open Street Map. It doesn't define the boundary, just gives a centre point for the map. If I go ahead with creating a new list article, I still favour including a linked coordinate, for the convenience it provides for readers of the list article to click on the link and see on the map where the suburb is generally located. Building the list article in a sortable table will take a bit of work but I am willing to do it, if there is support. I looked at a few Featured Articles about cities, but there is not a lot of consistency in the treatment of suburbs/ neighbourhoods. However, I found that large lists of suburbs/ neighbourhoods were not in the main featured article - large lists were always in separate list articles. So if there is support, I will go ahead with preparing a draft.__Marshelec (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have begun work on a separate list article for the suburbs. This draft currently includes 15 out of 88 suburb names that are listed in the main article. I will wait for feedback before proceeding further. See: Draft:Suburbs of Christchurch. Marshelec (talk) 07:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, fair point. I think listing the neighborhoods in a separate article is good. I agree with your point that it occupies space and may be tedious to read for readers. Alexeyevitch (talk) 07:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the Category:Suburbs of Christchurch has already solved this problem, so I don't think we need a separate list article.
 * I think a blurb at the top of the category mentioning that there is no formal/official definition of "suburbs" in Christchurch and that they're really just vague locality names as per @Roger 8 Roger's comment above would also be useful to add. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, I will be bold and go ahead with removing the list of suburbs in the article, and replace with some brief narrative, a link to the category, and a map. See what you think. Marshelec (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That looks really good, though the map doesn't seem to work on my browser. Probably a skill issue on my part David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That is unexpected. I have now tested the Christchurch page using Edge and Chrome on my laptop. In both cases, the suburbs map presented in the Infobox presents normally as a "thumbnail", and expands correctly when clicked in the top right box. I tried the Wikipedia mobile phone app as well, but it didn't display the map. However, looking at other articles with an interactive map, it seems that there is a consistent limitation with interactive maps in Infoboxes - they don't work in the mobile phone app._Marshelec (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I suggest that the mobile phone app sucks, which is why I'm not using it. I use desktop view on my phone, which isn't ideal but at least it shows me everything.  Schwede 66  00:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)