Talk:Weston, New Zealand

Demographics
Having over half the article devoted to detailed demographics detracts from the quality of the article. Only features that differentiate Weston from the wider Waitaki district are relevant. Although the census produces population statistics, calculating the margin of error for a sample of 708 gives some idea of what makes a meaningful difference. At around 3%, almost none of these things are meaningfully different to Waitaki. --Limegreen 03:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe so, but the entire Waitaki is a very homogenous place. The Demographics are seperating it from New Zealand, not the district. Deleting all but one statistic is equally damaging to the article. --Hayden5650 00:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand me. If the Waitaki district is notably different from the rest of New Zealand, then that information belongs in the Waitaki/Oamaru article. And the reality is that the homogeneity is a feature of much of the South Island.
 * And from a different angle. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias contain summaries of data, not all the data that is available (your original version may even run into copyright issues). Have a look at some other articles on towns; this level of information is just not warranted.--Limegreen 11:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Saleyards Road, off Weston Road, is at least a mile or more from central Weston. The subdivision, (not proposed, but very much in progress) is a gated community on the Eastern side. The already simplified Demographics section is not excessive, and shouldn't be replaced with utter nonsense. The Saleyards Road (so named due to the saleyards on the corner of it and Weston Road) subdivision will not at all see a merger of the two towns. In fact, it is a point constantly brought up during the Weston Progress League meetings that we must retain a rural boundary area between Weston and Oamaru. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.237.101.116 (talk • contribs).
 * I was only going by what I read in the ODT, which said that Weston basically is a suburb or Oamaru now (not that Weston has any particular legal status as a township or anything like that anyway). As for the demographics, they're not consistent with the style of other built-up areas of any size, and they're unremarkable as I've noted before. As near as I can tell Weston is famous for the proposed cement plant, the railway, and some church.--Limegreen 11:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(Chuckle), I don't mean to be offensive in any way, but if your simply going by the ODT, perhaps a little more research couldn't hurt. A newspaper is hardly scientific fact after all. And with the lack of other information, the already simplified demographics section is the best way with which to give an insight into the township. We are not a suburb of Oamaru, despite what the ODT's editor may think.


 * A newspaper isn't a scientific fact. It is, however, a superior source to your opinion.--Limegreen 11:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

My 'opinion' as taken from the official New Zealand Census, from Statistics New Zealand. I'm sure they are very opinionated. Please stop deleting perfectly good information, along with your misleading edit summaries.
 * Agree, http://www.stats.govt.nz/default.htmmoza

Sorry, but I didn't remember this conversation before I added some moderately detailed demographics again to this article. The article has grown quite a bit since 2007, so I don't feel the demographics are dominating the article to an unreasonable extent. I also consulted at NZ Wikipedians' notice board about the demographics before I starting posting them to hundreds of NZ articles. I'm happy to get feedback.- gadfium 08:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, ... if you have a look at the contributions of the now (banned) user who added them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hayden5650 you might get the gist of the type of "demographics" that were being highlighted. Zero problem with what you have added. Limegreen (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Childlike behaviour must stop
I dont care about the trivial detail of why information should or shouldnt be included, if its true and verifiable then thats good enough for me. If it unbalances the article then an effort could be made to gather the rest of the information that might balance the article. A period of patience and good faith would be a great way to cater for solutions to all percieved needs evolving. The surgery simply messes with the motivation of good people feeling that they are doing good things, sharing with the entire human population. I scanned the scattered chatter without reading completely and it seems like the same old same old, and its simply boring to tears. Its completely unimportant who is right or wrong or why... A good article with rich and true content is surely the objective here, is it possible that we can re-direct all our energies to positivity and inclusionism, to BUILD a wikipedia that represents our combined efforts?moza

New information about to become available
Statistics New Zealand have sent me the meshblock level database for the 2006 census and are about to send the 2006 digital boundaries (1st July). At that time I will be able to create maps with colour codes and objects representing the data, whatever, this article would be a great place to have such information for all people to access. This is a finer granulation than available from the webmap (that I built for the 2001 census) and has been historically exceedingly expensive. The New Zealand Government has funded the low cost release of both data and boundaries for exactly this purpose; to disseminate the information to those who need it, and have been unable to pay for it in the past. I am happy to be that channel, and my company is a verifiable source, but no-one here can really afford to waste energy on contributions that get cut to pieces for variably perceived meanings in the plethora of rules.. moza

VISION
the rules as I have read them for nearly two years now, can be used in so many ways to 'prove' so many methods are correct and appropriate, we have created a mini-state with legislation that is holding back the process. When I read the intent of the early creators of this space, its more generous and open, much more  full of POSSIBILITIES and VISION, than I experience here. That is true of society as a whole, and so its not really to be surprising at all, but is certainly different to working in our own protected, and yes dictatorial spaces.
 * My interpretation of the vision is to allow time to provide fairness and prevent the edit warring that is human nature when provoked; remove the provocation and that removes the need to war. Thats why agf is so important. I say replace the demographic information and have some discussion and voting if necessary and respect the passion that went into creating and building such an article, and then spread that out to other contributors. We might be mis-understood, but we are not out do the wrong thing, we dont need educating, and we certainly dont need edit wars, on the other hand there is so much good work to do out there, so many articles in need of attention, that some tiny locality at the bottom of the planet could be celebrated as making it here, and left to metamorph by the passionate people who want to do it. Its quite challenging to figure out priorities here in this space, i dont think we can, its a mirror of life, full of irrationality. (further reading reference: Irrationality - The Enemy Within, by Stuart Sutherland Penguin Press) moza

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Ignore_all_rules]
woo hoo guys, wikipedias FIRST RULE TO CONSIDER.. mmm I think that common sense should prevail, NOT endless quoting rules to justify actions that are surgical removal according to your perceived need...


 * It doesnt mean ignore the rules without due consideration and diligence, it means that improving wikipedia is higher up the hierarchy of action.moza