Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 13

Religion graph
File:NewZealandReligionsGraph.png needs a tweak. User:Vardion, its um "creator", is not around much at the mo. According to stats nz no religion is 34.7% but the graph shows a higher figure. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I queried this on the graph's talk page over a year ago, with no reply. But I think Statistics NZ's percentages are probably also misleading, in that "Object to answering" responses seem to be included in the base, without sufficient warning to readers. (By the way, I can't quite reproduce their 34.7% figure from the raw figures, which give 1297104/3743652 = 34.648%. I suspect they have used software that rounds to two decimal places by default, then rounded again.) -- Avenue (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did see your comment and a lack of progress, which is why I thought I shuld discuss it here. So we have a dilemma here where we can use the inaccurate Stats NZ ref or do our own sums to give a figure that is not misleading. Would the graph be classed as original research even though it more accurate?-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I took a look from the data table, to get:

Others = Buddhist + Hindu + Islam/Muslim + Judaism/Jewish + Spiritualism and New Age Religions + Other Religions. Percentage by dividing by "Total People Stated"

I don't see an explanation for the differences with the Religious affiliation page, it could be random rounding to protect confidentiality ("values for the same data may vary in different tables.") There have also been multiple responses since 2001 (2006 totals 102.483%) but I don't think that's a factor in the discrepancy. I propose updating the graph with the above table, the 0.3 % difference for Christian/2006 equates to 1.3 pixels, an alternative could be to email Statistics NZ and ask.

The OR page has a note on calculations: OR. XLerate (talk) 11:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (slow edit conflict) In my view, recalculating the percentages excluding the "Object to answering" responses would not be original research. But the Stats NZ figures needn't be misleading either, as long as it is made clear to the reader that "Object to answering" responses are included. For the graph, that would mean either including an "Object to answering" series in the graph itself (as on the right), or explicitly mentioning their inclusion in the caption or a footnote. I think the time series is long enough to prefer a line chart over a bar chart, too. -- Avenue (talk) 12:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Combining "Christian" with "Maori Christian" does seem like original research, unless we have a supporting source. Statistics NZ combine "Christian" with "Maori Christian" in their text, but not in their detailed tables. Since they report "total responses", this may complicate the calculations. Fortunately, they only recorded one response in 1991 and 1996, so we can simply calculate the Christian total for those years. -- Avenue (talk) 13:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The graph on the right now includes "Maori Christian" in the "Christian" total. The "Other" figure was derived by subtracting all the others from the total. This avoids double counting people with more than one "Other" religion, but excludes "Christian" people with another religion from the "Other" total. -- Avenue (talk) 14:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Phew!! Quick work!! Considering that all the trends are a linear progreeion I think a bar graph would be a nicer format (as it is currently). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I like the line graph, find a bar chart harder to understand with four series. XLerate (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's a bar chart for comparison. I think the linear progression (and the slight deviations from it) are easier to follow on the line graph. -- Avenue (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I like it. I will use it as a replacement and lets see how it goes. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Local body election pages
The local body election pages need a bit of a clean up:
 * New Zealand local elections, 2004 are New Zealand local elections, 2007 are only partially written
 * It is time to start expanding the stub at New Zealand local elections, 2010
 * Dunedin Mayoralty Election, 2004 and Dunedin Mayoralty Election, 2007 are the only two in a "Mayoralty Election" series. They are notable so deletion is not an option. Should we have such a series of article or should they be merged into the nascent "New Zealand local elections" article series? I prefer the latter option. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

We also have Auckland mayoral election, 2010. I think having articles on the mayoral elections for the major cities is quite appropriate, although I have no intention of starting new ones.- gadfium 21:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If the mayoral election articles are written there will be a gap in the article hierarchy ie. we would need Auckland local election, 2010, Dunedin local election, 2010 etc. The mayoral elections are of the most interest to WP readers but the other info is needed for completeness. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Taranaki land wars
The 150th anniversary of the First Taranaki War comes up in March 2010, with special events planned by various entities (such as Puke Ariki). If you have expertise and interest in this area, now would be a good time to revise and expand the relevant Wikipedia articles. Thanks --Pakaraki (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could start the process in Selected anniversaries, to get the page listed in the "On this day" section of the main page, eg Selected anniversaries/March 17.- gadfium 05:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Item added at Selected anniversaries/March 17. Not being a historian, I'm not sure how the significance of this should be best expressed, but sure that someone here will know. --Pakaraki (talk) 07:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Problem with a map
I'm asking here in the hope that someone who knows what they're on about might be reading this... I've noticed a comment that the location map at Windsor, New Zealand shows the town about 20 km out of position. I had a look at the file for the location map ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NZ-SI_plain_map.png ) but it doesn't show any towns on it at all, and the file links also mentioned it was in use at Cust, New Zealand. I looked at that page and found that the town in question was shown about 25 km out of position. (In both cases, the towns are situated well inland but are shown on the coast). I'd like to try fixing these but have no idea how. Daveosaurus (talk) 10:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The coordinates in the wikitext for those articles are right, according to Google Maps: Windsor, Cust. So the map template Location map New Zealand South Island seems to be wrong. I've tweaked it so that the results for those towns look closer to reality. This is a pretty rough and ready fix, but perhaps it's good enough. The only other page that seems to use this is Bahá'í Faith in New Zealand, and the results there seem roughly right, too. -- Avenue (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * For Windsor and Cust I feel it would be better to use Location map New Zealand, showing the whole country. The SI location map has a map projection issue - File:NZ-SI_plain_map.png appears to be Transverse Mercator (same as NZTopoOnline), while the location map template uses equirectangular. So it needs a different map image or to be changed to Location map skew. I haven't checked Location map New Zealand North Island, but think it maybe the same. XLerate (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Christchurch meetup
Lets meet up in Christchurch if you live here or are passing through. Add your time and place. Lets see what sort of consensus we can get.
 * 1) -- Alan Liefting (talk) - C1 cafe or Twisted Hop, March 4 actually that date was a bit random. My calendar is a bit empt around that time.
 * 2) -- Schwede66 (talk) - your suggested venues are good, but you've picked a day I can't make. 1, 3, 8, 10 or 11 March would work for me. Straight after work, or early evening - I'm easy.


 * What date shall we settle on, Alan? Monday, 1 March would be good. 3 March is out. What's your preference for a time? Schwede 66  21:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Wellington 18/19 Feb
I am heading down for the Webstock conference, so if any Wellypedians are interested in meeting either evening, suggest a venue. dramatic (talk) 07:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, I'll just go and see some fringe shows then. dramatic (talk) 04:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced BLPs
Per WP:BLPRFC2, it looks possible all unsourced BLPs will be prodded at some point. I've put together a list of New Zealand articles in Category:Unreferenced BLPs together with NZ Herald hits for the name here. XLerate (talk) 10:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that looks very useful. Some support has also been expressed at WP:BLPRFC2 for a "delete on sight" policy, although fortunately that doesn't seem to be the frontrunner. -- Avenue (talk) 11:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Good work! Can you please outline what you'd like to see done when references have been provided? Strike out the item, or remove it from the list, or nothing?  Schwede 66  20:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Good work but we should remember that NZ Herald hits is only a guideline for WP notability. If have already put one one the list (Alexander Kramer) up for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I think striking a remedied entry is fine. Yes the hits is a rough estimate only, other notable people with the same name, article name differs from common name, retired from politics before 1999, etc. There was a comment at the RFC I though may be useful also - "editors who want to remove inappropriate articles can work up from the bottom of the list, and editors who want to retain valuable content can work down from the top". XLerate (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that comment was for the theoretical case where a bot ranks the list by criteria such as age, number of editors, number of inbound links etc - it doesn't make any sense on a plain alphabetical list. I am picking off people who are clearly notable and definitely deserving of an article first, e.g. Alamein Kopu. (I added 750 bytes/ 3 references, and while it's by no means fully referenced, you can't call it a UBLP any more). dramatic (talk) 05:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's right, no sense with alpha sort, I meant if the list is sorted by hits. XLerate (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We are making good progress on this, which is good to see. XLerate, are you planning on producing a new list? I can see the following advantages of doing so:
 * This would get newly identified uBLPs onto the list (the most important aspect)
 * We'd lose all the redlinks
 * We'd lose all the strike throughs
 * Thanks.  Schwede 66  04:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I was going to check for untagged unreferenced BLPs and add any to the list, I can check for newly tagged articles also. XLerate (talk) 09:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Disadvantages are
 * We'd lose an easy starting point for similar persons.
 * We'd lose the feelgood factor of seeing the progress being made. It actually inspires me to feel like doing a few more.
 * We should of course add new ones to the list. On a bright note, I see we have a few cricket fans out there, getting on through them nicely. Surprisingly few rugby and music ones being done. No surprise on the politicians - no body likes them anyway;-). Next chance I get I'll work through a few more hockey and other Olympians. ps, feel free to simply delete the red-link ones, they no longer have any value I can see-- Club Oranje T 10:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Cricket has two excellent reliable sources where you can find anyone immediately - low hanging fruit. It also has its own project getting to pages before us. Other sports are a little harder to find RS on. With "celebrities" (anyone in TV or the media) we are swamped with sites who rank high in google and have pages on people which are more or less empty or have a bit of info pulled from Wikipedia. Politicians: Well, after breaking the principle that URLs should persist forever on both stats.govt.nz and a couple of MCH sites, many search results for former MPs on .govt.nz sites merely redirect to the current front page of beehive.govt.nz . Utterly clueless! dramatic (talk) 01:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * An update: 40% of the list has now been done. --Avenue (talk) 13:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

"uggs", or "UGG&reg; boots"
A(n) RFC at Talk:Ugg boots has attracted comments from remarkably few people; perhaps some of you here would like to contribute. -- Hoary (talk) 03:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:Opinion polling for elections in New Zealand
I think we should upmerge Category:Opinion polling for elections in New Zealand to Category:Elections in New Zealand. I doubt that the category will ever get highly populated. Well in the next 10 years at least! See also WP:OC. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think that WP:OC applies here, as there will be growth in the future. Examples given on the WP:OC page are similar to C:Spouses of x.

However, after looking at Category:Elections in New Zealand, Category:Electoral reform in New Zealand should be merged, with the only article being the title article! I will list this at WP:CFD. Adabow ( talk )  09:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It would also be possible to write a few articles on opinion polling for elections before 2005. --Avenue (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Auckland Meetup on 9 May 2010
There will be an Auckland Wikipedia Meetup on 9 May 2010 from noon to 4pm. I've created the page so people can start adding items to the agenda, marking down the date & time in their diary.
 * Happening today in an hour's time! Linnah (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Old discussion
It is way past due to have another Auckland WP meetup! last one was 11Oct08! Is anyone keen for a meeting on Sat 8 May or Sun 9 May? It'll be somewhere in Auckland of course! Just asking here before I put up an Auckland_5 page. I have a few venues in mind. If you are new, see Meetup/Auckland for past meetups

Vote (to make it easy for those who don't want to comment just add your username to one of the options below):
 * Yes (either 8/9 May) - Linnah ; gadfium ;  SS  ✞(Kay), Avenue
 * Yes (8May) -
 * Yes (9May) - SimonLyall ; DerbyCountyinNZ
 * Yes (but choose another date) -
 * No (don't want a meetup) -

Linnah (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * How exciting! I'm not active in NZ-related articles; does that mean I can't come? SS  ✞(Kay) 07:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course you can, not restarted to NZ-related article people at all - SimonLyall (talk) 08:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Somewhat implausible suggestion: photo rally...? This should probably go on the meetup template as well. SS  ✞(Kay) 07:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Johnny Devlin
I'm in a rush today, but could someone give Johnny Devlin a look over? I noticed several decidedly non-neutral statements in a quick perusal. dramatic (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added a couple of tags. I might be able to have a better look at it tomorrow. (Talk Contribs) 23:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme
Some adjudication may be needed at Talk:New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme. Mrfebruary (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Cabbage tree (New Zealand)
I have proposed on Talk:Cabbage tree (New Zealand) that this article should be moved to the scientific name, Cordyline australis. There are actually five native NZ species of Cordyline which have Cabbage tree as part of their common names, and the others are all under their scientific names, although this one is the best known. Another reason I am raising this here is that I am nearly finished a rewrite and expansion here of the article and wouldn't mind some input and advice. It's quite an important tree - a food source for native birds, a plant cultivated by Māori, especially in the South Island, and deserved a better article.Kahuroa (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice re-write, are you going to nominate it for a good article? I think the work is there, and with some polish it could be a fairly easy nom. I'll leave some quick comments on your revised article on your talk page. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  06:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Yeah, why not go for GA. Will answer your comments on my talk. Kahuroa (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's now a GA!! Kahuroa (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well done!  Schwede 66  19:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

New Zealand statutes
Someone has added an 'administered by' bit onto the NZ statute infobox, which doesn't go away even if you delete in on specific pages. I can see how having this information there would be useful for some laws, but I'm not sure that all laws are administered by anyone specific, and even if they are, most people don't know who does it. The result is that most of the legislation pages have a thing in their infoboxes saying 'Administered by '. Can someone fix this so it only appears if there is something in that field? --Helenalex (talk) 04:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added a default to that parameter, does it look ok now? (e.g. Smokefree Environments Amendment Act 2003)? XLerate (talk) 04:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies, that was me. I had noticed the problem and was intending to fix it when I had a spare minute. I thought that the "administered by" field adds real value to people viewing the legislation on Wikipedia, as it makes it more transparent who looks after the thing (while not currently a secret, no one seems to understand this, which I think impairs society. "Free access to the sum of all human knowledge....yada yada yada"). My understanding is that all New Zealand legislation has an (or more than one) administering organisation. Lanma726 (talk) 06:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

NZ statutes are allocated to particular Ministers by the PM. The Acts do not normally refer in their text to a department but only to a "Minister" (who could be any Minister-there won't be any reference to a particular portfolio). It is not uncommon for Acts to be reallocated between different Ministers (State sector reorganisation has happened frequently in the last 20 or so years- and there seems to be an upsurge in interest in amalgamating departments so there is likely to be accompanying reallocations of statutes). So by all means indicate administering departments but this information will need to be reviewed from time to time.Rick570 (talk) 09:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Name
I've put a request in talk:Queen's Wharf, Auckland for the following: Please rename Queen's Wharf, Auckland to Queens Wharf, Auckland

Open Day
Queens Wharf is having an open (half) day on ANZAC Day Sunday 25 April 2010 1pm - 5pm. I am mentioning it here in case someone wants to go check out the wharf (as it has been in the news) AND take some photos for the WP page Queen's Wharf, Auckland. However there may be too many ppl around (in light of the programme and activities listed for the Open Day) to get a good shot for the WP Page.

Queens Wharf Open Day Sorry I forgot to sign this Linnah (talk) 12:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I went along. It wasn't nearly as crowded as I had thought it might be, but still too many people around to be worth taking photos.- gadfium 19:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Soccer/association football in NZ
I think CFD could benefit from the view of some New Zealand Wikipedians on the appropriate way for categories to refer to this sport in New Zealand. See this discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Michael Hill Jeweller
A completely amazing article and 99% the work of just one editor. Read it and you too will be dumbstruck - SimonLyall (talk) 09:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've tagged it! (Talk Contribs) 10:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you see the dates the references were retrieved? s/he invented a time machine! Linnah (talk) 10:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks folks. Still getting the hang of things, though. I've also put together a page for the man himself: Michael Hill (entrepreneur) --Jewelryguy46 (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC).
 * Thanks for creating the articles. However, if you are associated with or employed by Michael Hill Jeweller, I'd strongly advise you to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest . Please note that, if this is the case, it isn't intended to warn you off creating and editing articles - just that you should exercise caution and use a neutral point of view while doing so. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Mt Taranaki or Mount Egmont
I've reopened discussion on the best title for this article at Talk:Mount_Taranaki/Egmont. dramatic (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

New Zealand
New Zealand has been assessed against the Good article standards. The review is here. Seeing as this is probably the most important article to NZ Wikipedians, can everyone chip in and resolve one of its problems, and it will soon be up to standard? Thanks, Adabow  ( talk )  06:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Was awarded GA status on 1 May, 2010. Thanks to User:Avenue for all their help referencing. Adabow  ( talk )  22:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks to Xlerate too, and to you for nominating it. --Avenue (talk) 05:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Congratulations.- gadfium 22:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well done! Kahuroa (talk) 06:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The biodiversity section needs some work. It isn't wrong, per se, it just feels like it doesn't emphasise or contextualise the right things. It also needs additional cites, which I am certainly able to help with I'll have a go at improving it, if no one minds. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  06:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Your help would of course be appreciated. You should be well qualified. And well done, everybody, who got the article in such fine shape.  Schwede 66  06:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Graph using R needs update
File:NZ opinion polls 2009-2011 -parties.png needs updating with the newer results. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The polling data in Opinion polling for the New Zealand general election, 2011 was pretty patchy too. I've added results for a couple of dozen more polls, and updated the graph. --Avenue (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Auckland Rugby Football Union
Does anyone feel up to rescuing Auckland Rugby Football Union from a sea of hyperbole? dramatic (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I almost drowned, but got some done before I passed out Kahuroa (talk) 05:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Graph needed for Opinion polling for the New Zealand general election, 2005
Opinion polling for the New Zealand general election, 2005 needs a graph. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It needs much more data too. So far we only show poll results from one organisation (Colmar Brunton) and from one year (2005), but the real action happened earlier, when National doubled its support after Brash's Orewa speech. --Avenue (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Places Wikiproject
I think it's time to do something about merging WikiProject New Zealand places‎ back to WikiProject New Zealand. Prior to my proposing this today, the last edit on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand places‎ was just over a year ago by User:Grutness who is no longer active. I'm not sure exactly what the process should be though. dramatic (talk) 08:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And Grutness's post was about how there had been little activity for the year or two before that. I agree it should be merged. --Avenue (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have an inkling that most of the hard work on NZ places has been done so it is now a case of mopping up loose ends and doing maintenance. A separate WikiProject is therefore not really needed. It should be merged, or alternatively it could be a WikiProject task force within WikiProject New Zealand. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Politics task force
The politics task force now has its own parameter in the banner. If you come across a politics-related article with the WPNZ banner, or are adding the WPNZ banner to a politics-related article, please add  and   to the WPNZ banner template.


 * A music task force parameter is also being developed, please participate in the relevant discussion.

Adabow ( talk )  09:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Cannabis
In typical WP fashion there is no rhyme or reason to the creation of WP articles: How do we sort this out? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is an Otago NORML article but no NORML New Zealand article
 * There is a Mary Jane the Cannabus article but no NORML New Zealand article, the users of the "Cannabus".


 * I suppose creating a NORML New Zealand article would sort it out. It may be sufficiently notable specially now that their magazine is up for censoring. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Calling all NZ military history buffs
Hi all, this is just a friendly hello to let you know that the Military History project has undergone some changes recently which have resulted in a merge between the New Zealand and Australian task forces to create the "Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force" (or WP:ANZSP for short). We currently have very few active New Zealand members, so if you are interested in getting involved, please stop by. -- saberwyn 03:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Keen to break a WikiRecord?
Schwede66 is attempting to break the record for DYK hook with the most artickles, which currently stands at 26. Schwede is attempting to start an article for each Mayor of Christchurch. Want to help? Take a look at User:Schwede66/mayors and the relevant talk page. Adabow ( talk )  09:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone remember?
A few years back we had an article about Russian Jack, the swagman/tramp who for many years was domiciled mainly in the Wairarapa but who regularly wandered up into the Wanganui hinterland farms. He was widely known, so much so that there is a statue of him in Masterton. You can read about him here. We had quite a nice article about him, including a photograph, but I can't remember the title of it. I went to view it today at Russian Jack and got an Aussie swaggy. That article was created in February 2006, which I think is after I had already read our Russian Jack article. I can't find our one, or anything under our man's name, Barrett Crumen. There may still be people here who contributed to this article and can find it in their history, meaning if it was deleted we could restore it. Anyone got any hints? Moriori (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know anything about the missing article, but this has led me to notice the extreme Aussie bias in our swagman article. Not a single mention of New Zealand until I tagged it just now. I'll try to fix it up in a week or two if no one beats me to it. --Avenue (talk) 09:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I had a poke around but couldn't find any mention of this Russian Jack on Wikipedia. I agree he's certainly a suitable candidate for an article.- gadfium 19:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Cross-wiki pollination
simple:New Zealand is an unsourced article and many of our higher-importance NZ articles don't even exist on that wiki. If anyone has a little time to lend, it'd be much appreciated, as it's really not my area of expertise. Thanks, {&#123; Sonia &#124;talk&#124;simple}&#125; 10:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Help needed with One News (New Zealand)
This edit made some legitimate-looking changes to One News (New Zealand), but also vandalised it (Phineas and Ferb, making the logo 1000px). I Don't watch it, so could someone please help sort out fact from fiction regarding the current presenter line-up? And the referencing is dire. dramatic (talk) 10:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Draft changes to New Zealand – United Kingdom relations
I've put together some draft changes for this Stub-class article; it's not a particularly detailed expansion and a number of the points included need work, but I thought it may be preferable to have it in mainspace where it's available for development (under the proper history sequence). Please see Talk:New Zealand – United Kingdom relations. Since it involves a decent size change to a High-importance article, I thought I'd ask for a second opinion before going ahead; tuppence appreciated! —Preceding undated comment added 03:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC).
 * Apologies, forgot sig Philtweir (talk) 03:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Implemented; thanks to those who had a look over! Philtweir (talk) 00:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Singles charts
Hi there. I'm very suspicious of the Wikipedia article List of artists who reached number one on the New Zealand Singles Chart. The reference given does not appear to back up the content, it includes artists who I have no recollection of having a number one hit single in this country and it does not include artists who I do have a definite recollection of having number one singles. I personally think it a good candidate for AFD but as someone with limited experience do not think I'm qualified to do so. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like the original list was a c&p from the Auastralian list as per this warning on the creating user's talk page. I suspect insufficient care was taken with replacing the Austrlaian entries. The user appears from their talk page to not be too particular about following wiki guidelines. I suspect the article needs attention from an experienced user with an interest in NZ music. If the article doesn't improve substantially in the next week I'd support Afd. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've given it a month but there's been little improvement so have had a go at nominating it for AFD. I think I've done it properly and will probably find out fairly quickly if I haven't! Daveosaurus (talk) 08:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyright status of Royal Commission reports
Is this report able to be uploaded to Commons? It is a valuable document that needs a good home. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This template summarises copyright information for New Zealand, it looks to be copyright until 2045. WP:MCQ may also be able to help. XLerate (talk) 03:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually the Copyright Act 1994 says:


 * 27 No copyright in certain works
 * (1) No copyright exists in any of the following works, whenever those works were made:
 * (h) Reports of Royal commissions, commissions of inquiry, ministerial inquiries, or statutory inquiries.
 * XLerate (talk) 04:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all that. I had looked up Crown_copyright and it said the same thing. I was going to upload it to Commons but I have no idea what licence tag to use. Any clues? Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd use PD-NZ with a note saying Royal Commission reports are on the exclusion from copyright list. XLerate (talk) 06:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)