Talk:Cornwall Park, Auckland

The "area comparisons" section
deleted it, claiming it was "not necessary". Then reinstated it, saying that Ortreat's deletion was unhelpful. Noticing this section, I then (IMHO) significantly improved it. And now has deleted it again, claiming that it was "unreferenced". I could understand an argument that this section is not 'useful' (though I'd disagree with that), but why it it considered "unreferenced"? Each of the parks listed here have links, and the areas come directly from those pages. Ross Finlayson (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You've been around long enough to know that references are needed for data like this and Wikipedia articles cannot be used as references. Whether it is useful or not (I think it is) is beside the point. One way you could make it work would be to cite a source for each park's area including Cornwall Park's. Shouldn't be hard to do, if each park actually has a ref for its area. Of course, if one or more parks don't have a source for their area, that's a problem and proves my point that the comparison fails the WP:RS test. Akld guy (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree with the premise that "references are needed" for sections like this. It's a simple sorting (WP:NOTSYNTH) of the areas given in the linked articles.  Yes, the areas in each of the linked articles need to be referenced (and I presume they are), but copying and inserting those exact same references in each line of this "area comparisons" section would be unwieldy.  If that's what's needed to undelete this section, I'm not going to bother (though if someone wants to be WP:BOLD and just undelete it as is, then I'm not going to complain either :-) Ross Finlayson (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The park's size
There are several issues over the park's size. I am recording these discrepancies because I do not have uninterrupted time right now to do a lengthy search for sources. If someone else is interested in doing so, drop me a talk page line so we don't duplicate each other's work. Akld guy (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The lead says 670 acres, as does the infobox. The lead explains that this includes the adjacent One Tree Hill domain. The infobox does not and is therefore disingenuous.
 * The 670 acres appears to be erroneous, being possibly a dyslexic typo for 607. The lead first says that Campbell donated 230 acres, restated in the Land section as "two hundred and thirty acres". In the Endowment section, a "second gift of 104 acres", followed by another 143, making a total of 477. Then, combined with One Tree Hill's 130. The 477 and 130 are very well sourced in the Paperspast ref. This gives a (deduced) new total of 607 acres. It looks to me as though the 607 has become 670 in the lead and infobox by way of a dyslexic typo.
 * The One Tree Hill article gives a totally different combined total of 540 acres, from 118 and 425 (arithmetic is close, but not quite correct). None of those figures are sourced but evidently they once were with only a fragment of the ref remaining.
 * Interesting. The Cornwall Park Trust's own web site notes an area of 425 acres (excluding One Tree Hill): .  At this point I don't know what to believe.  (Perhaps it'll end up being smaller than Hyde Park :-) Ross Finlayson (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear multi-offensive time-stretched Akldguy. Give it a try, you can do it! Yours ever, Dyslexic Dai, Eddaido (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I was puzzled by your remarks until I looked back through the editing history and found you had been very active a month or two back. You probably think I drew attention to the discrepancies in order to embarrass you. Let me say right now that I had no idea that you did a lot of editing back then. I did not check the editing history before posting my report. If I had known that you were possibly the source of some errors, (and I still don't know whether you are), I wouldn't have posted the report. You have some kind of beef with me that I do not understand, as shown on my talk page. I would like you to stop personal remarks from this point on. Thank you. Akld guy (talk) 05:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, do not make alterations to another editor's post, as you did here to my post on this talk page. Akld guy (talk) 05:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We have tangled in the past because you see yourself as some kind of policeman. I suggest you think more carefully about what you write in your drive-bys. Eddaido (talk) 07:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Which bit of "policy" is that please? Eddaido (talk) 10:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Editing other people's comments on Talk pages violates the Wikipedia policy here: Talk_page_guidelines. If you disagree with something that someone has said on a Talk page, it's best to address this by making a new comment. Ross Finlayson (talk) 10:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, (without checking), but I changed nothing, I just added that the use the word has been put to renders it meaningless. This is an editor that is criticising my input. Eddaido (talk) 10:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:TPOC. I did not criticize your input, merely recorded some discrepancies. At the time I was not aware that it was your input. Akld guy (talk) 10:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * By adding text to his post, you changed it, by (perhaps unintentionally) making it appear as if the words you added were written by him. It would have been better to add a new comment - clearly signed as your own - that referred to his post, without changing his post. Ross Finlayson (talk) 10:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oops, and my apologies for accidentally deleting a comment when I added mine. Ross Finlayson (talk) 11:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know, but he is an editor that persistently tries to make big issues of small things. So, when he says the infobox is disingenuous —disingenuous, a word which Google says means - "not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does"— it does not make sense. Can infoboxes behave like that. No. Am I being picky? Eddaido (talk) 11:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I think you are misinterpreting "disingenuous". I did not say you were disingenuous, I said the infobox is disingenuous because of the discrepancy in the numbers. Akld guy (talk) 11:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, infoboxes can be disingenuous, and it does not imply you lied. Here it simply means the infobox presents a figure but does not explain the full circumstances. Akld guy (talk) 11:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The nice new map
Is just that but it does not seem to fit the shape of the Google aerial photo. Is there a particular reason for this? Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 04:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's because Cornwall Park proper does not include the One Tree Hill/Maungakiekie volcanic cone (maunga). That's a separate piece of land, owned by the local iwi, I think. Ross Finlayson (talk) 04:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, would it be a good idea to have that piece of land coloured in a different green and clearly marked? Eddaido (talk) 04:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The map is generated from OpenStreetMap. In OpenStreetMap there is one relation for Cornwall Park and one for the council managed Maungakiekie / One Tree Hill Domain. (Two owners of separate parts but only one management Eddaido (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC))
 * For more detail on the difference (not well covered in the Wikipedia article) see the Cornwall Park website:
 * Cornwall Park wraps around Maungakiekie/One Tree Hill and One Tree Hill Domain.  Although their beginnings were as the same land, today One Tree Hill Domain is Tāmaki Makaurau Collective land, and jointly governed by the Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority (Maunga Authority) and Auckland Council. Cornwall Park is however private land, managed by a trust. The exception is the mighty obelisk - Auckland’s beacon at the top of Maungakiekie. It was Sir John’s wish for the obelisk to be installed to honour the Maori people of Tāmaki Makaurau, with Sir John himself now buried beneath. This area remains Cornwall Park land.
 * ShakyIsles (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, I wrote the original article in association with the Cornwall Park management, more than three years ago. Unfortunately the person concerned is on leave for about another week but "a manager" is going to call me back shortly. In the meantime please would you improve the coverage in this article to deal with your note "For more detail on the difference (not well covered in the Wikipedia article)". Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Is this the map you refer to? It looks right to me and quite different from WP's but if you would colour the Collective's portion to your taste then the two images (including the Park's cricket field) would be much nearer a match? Eddaido (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * A simplified version of this map from their website:
 * http://cornwallpark.co.nz/uploads/logos/Cornwall_Park_park_map_25-10-2018.pdf
 * would be ideal with a greater contrast of colour between the Park and the Domain. Note it includes the cricket ground mistakenly omitted from the Shaky Isles version. Eddaido (talk) 03:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)