Talk:Christchurch

STOP STOP

Continuing from but different to the above section. The Addington article was reasonably okay. There had been some gradual improvements over the last couple of years, but much of that has been undone by yet more edits by user:Alexeyevitch which all have to be undone changed or repaired. From recent discussions it appears that he is being encouraged and helped by experienced editors to get involved by working on Christchurch suburbs. It should now be clear that he doesn't have the ability to make improvements. This is an open access encyclopedia for anyone to view but it is not a Year 10 note book to fill up with draft notes and scribble, but that is what is happening. If you have access to Alexeyevitch and are encouraging his edits then please stop. Get him to write drafts and then go over them with him first - all off line. Also, please remember that although anyone can edit, not everyone is capable of editing. A certain level of ability is necessary and assumed. If he wants to get involved, that is good. I suggest you help him to make some automatic technical edits, like changing short descriptions to 'none'. Alexeyvitch, I've asked you to stop or slow down before but you don't, possibly encouraged by others to keep going. If you keep making these mass edits full of mistakes I, and hopefully others, will treat it as disruptive. I have no doubt you are acting in good faith, but remember that disruptive edits can still be made in good faith. This post is mainly directed at those who are helping you in the real world. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Several things:

1. This is not the appropriate place for discussing that article.
2. I have had a look at the article and it looks to have been generally improved by their edits. I have checked every one of their recent contributions there and it looks like they have contributed very productively to the article. I can’t see anything concerning enough to warrant this reaction from you.
3. If you have specific criticisms, list them on the relevant talk page. Otherwise your complaints are just “I don’t like it” with no way to respond to them. Constructive criticism please.
4. Your messages to this user are so critical and dismissive of their good faith editing that you are crossing the threshold of civility from my perspective.

David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 08:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with Cloventt - I am not sure why is this here? I don't want to get too invovled here but I need to make an important point.

1. It is discouraged to discourage other fellow editors to stop editing/editing topics of interest (or even Wikimedia projects in general)

2. Also this comment: "If you keep making these mass edits full of mistakes I, and hopefully others, will treat it as disruptive" I think this is bad-faith. I don't want to pressurize you but I think this comment was a bit harsh.

3. Everyone makes mistakes, learn from them. Don't make the same misakes again.

4. I don't want to be hubris on my part, but I recently realized of the importance of civility... this might be a good read for Roger. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 09:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

No, not being uncivil, so please do not go down that path. I have repeatedly told him to slow down and draft off line first but it is not happening, and it appears that others are encouraging him to do his practice runs online. This is in fact the best place to comment because my remarks are about Christchurch suburbs and it follows directly from the above post - Addington is just the latest example. Since the beginning of May, he has made about eleven edits of over 6,000 letters. All have been removed or changed, including a series of changes today made by user:Goldenbaybutcher. I replaced the lead which was fluff. So, no, his edits have not been an improvement, they have in fact caused others to spend time sorting them out. There is only so much someone can say 'tactfully' before having to be more direct. I regret that blunt talk upsets you so much but giving and taking direct criticism and suggestions that might appear curt to some is all part of Wikipedia editing. Open debate improves Wikipedia and should be encouraged. I assumed you knew that. Now, back to the point, which is not primarily about this editor: it is about others who, I assume, are encouraging him to by-pass the necessary off-line drafting or online use of his wp:sandbox, which is what its's for. Unfortunately, your edit above hasn't led me to change my view about that. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@Alexetevitch. I am not discouraging you from editing; I am encouraging you to learn how to edit properly by practising and drafting offline first. Your comment is a good example of what I mean - you do not understand what I have been saying and as a result you accuse me falsely of discouraging you. I then have to spend two minutes refuting your accusation, two minutes I could be spending elsewhere doing something else. If you still don't understand why my remarks are in fact trying to help you contribute then I cannot do much more I'm afraid. Here's another suggestion, that would be easier given to you in person in front of a screen: Draft a sentence or two offline. Then look at every single word to see if it supported by a source or is just something you have made up in your mind without realising it. So when you write (for example) "There are many notable buildings in Opawa", is that true? Many doesn't mean one or two, or even three or four, it means many. So, unless the source says there are many, or the source gives examples of at least seven or eight, then don't use the word many. Also consider that between a couple and many comes the word several, which would be better to use than half a dozen. There is a staggered line of adjectives to describe more than one: a couple, some, a few, half a dozen, several, many, very many, numerous, countless. They all change the meaning of a sentence in which they are used in different ways, so handle them with care. Best to use the word in the source and not make one up. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

A further point in answer to my disruptive remark - it isn't a matter of your making mistakes, which we all do. You are adding a sentence or two and then rearranging it or changing the odd word or adding a comma or moving it to another section. That is what should be done off line by working on an initial draft. You could then get someone else to check your final draft to suggest any further changes. By not doing that you are creating clutter and errors online that leads to frustration and wasted time by others. That is what I mean by being disruptive, not the occasional typo. I regret it if you feel these remarks are also an unwarranted criticism. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello, who would be the one willing to review such drafts for chch suburbs? if it's no one than this plan won't work. They should also provide suggestions to the prose.

There are 5 heritage-listed places in Opawa (St. Marks church does not appear to be a heritage-listed building, it is a prominent landmark in the suburb though.)

• 188 Richardson Terrace
• 44 Opawa Road
• 9 Ford Road
• 41 Opawa Road
• 22 Cholmondeley Avenue

I saw your edit summary on Woolston and I panicked for a bit because it was out of the blue. I thought the statement was to discourage/STOP me from editing chch articles. I was wrong... it also depends if there will be the "reviewer" for the drafts. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Having your edits changed is not a reason to stop editing. It is just part of the normal collaborative process of editing. Comparing the state of the article from last week to now, it has obviously improved. A key part of that improvement is this user jumping in and making edits. Please do not discourage editors from editing in good faith. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 12:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, Opawa's a big place, it's a suburb that stretches out without obvious boundaries and has different parts to it, rich and poor. You could also write a bit on Hanson park and the loop. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 12:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Writing style

Not really a super fan of Strunk but contains some useful principles to consider when writing.

- Make the paragraph the unit of composition: one paragraph to each topic

- As a rule, begin each paragraph with a topic sentence; end it in conformity with the beginning

- Use the active voice

- Put statements in positive form

- Use definite, specific, concrete language

- Omit needless words

- Avoid a succession of loose sentences

- Express co-ordinate ideas in similar form

- Keep related words together

- In summaries, keep to one tense

There's no point in writing these articles if they make no sense. There are several suburb articles which read like a stream of consciousness. Be specific, active, omit needless words. Keep it plain - the article should be able to be understood the first time it is read. If something is a house, it is a house. Not a building, not a homestead, not an opulent house - it's a house. If there is a new idea in a sentence that is probably a good time to use a full stop, and start the next sentence. One idea, one sentence.

I'm not tagging anyone in here because, and I cannot emphasise this enough, I am not interested in engaging with the petty behaviour I see here.

Write better. Goldenbaybutcher (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Awesome advice! David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 02:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Split out sports venues into a list article ?

Here is another suggestion for tidying up this article. How about we split off the list of sports venues into a separate list article ?. The list could then be expanded. As just one example, all golf courses could be listed. The benefit would be improving the readability of the main article by removing a tedious list, and allowing expansion of the list in a separate article for any readers who are particularly interested. Looking at some highly rated articles about cities, it is not common for them to include long lists like this. I would be willing to take the initial lead on this, if there is some support. Another option would be to create a new article Sport in Christchurch, and relocate most sports-related content there. Comments please._Marshelec (talk) 03:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the article should look similar (and better) than the Sport in Sydney article. The Commonwealth Games is a noted event in Christchurch's history. And soon, an international sports venue centered in the central city. I will add content to the article when it exists. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 05:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Here is a suggestion for a table that could go into a new article Sport in Christchurch. I propose that the table of teams could be followed by a table of sports venues. Once the proposed new article is in place and has sufficient initial content, it would then be possible to cut back the existing content in this article significantly, and write it mostly in prose, rather than list form. Comments please, before I go any further. Any suggestions for different/new columns etc ? Is a new article worthwhile ?:

Teams in national competitions

Sport	Gender	Team/Association	Established	National competition	Home venue	Notes
Rugby Union	Mens	Crusaders	1996	Super Rugby	Rugby League Park (known as Apollo Projects Stadium)
Rugby Union	Mens	Canterbury Rugby Football Union	1879	National Provincial Championship	Under construction: Te Kaha (also known as Canterbury Multi-Use Arena)
Cricket	Mens	Canterbury Kings	1877	Super Smash	Hagley Oval
Cricket	Womens	Canterbury Magicians	1932	Super Smash	Hagley Oval

Marshelec (talk) 05:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, the table looks good. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 05:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I am continuing to work on development of a new article for Sport in Christchurch, and will publish this as a draft when it is more advanced. In the meantime, I have noticed that there is no article for the major sports complex at Ngā Puna Wai, although it is mentioned here:Wigram#Parks,_sports_and_recreation. Is anyone willing to create a stub article for Ngā Puna Wai ?? Marshelec (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I am willing to incorporate that content inside the Sport in Christchurch article.

At present time, I don't really create articles so I may not be a qualified person to do this. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 22:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the need for a separate article. There aren't that many sporting venues which have Wiki articles. Ok to list in a table as discussed above. Ajf773 (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Draft: Sport in Christchurch - comments please

I have created a new draft article Draft:Sport in Christchurch. There is scope for significant further expansion of the draft, but it would be great to get some feedback about coverage, the structure, and the content of tables etc. The idea is that after further expansion and publication of the draft, the sports-related content in the Christchurch article can be reduced significantly, leaving a "main" template link to the new article. Please comment on the talk page of the draft, or chip in and expand the draft._Marshelec (talk) 02:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The article Sport in Christchurch is now in mainspace, and content about sport in this article has been replaced, with a link added to the new article. The new article could do with further expansion, but I have done my best in the time available. There is a need for new articles for some sports venues - I have left redlinks in to highlight these. Hopefully someone will make a start on those._Marshelec (talk) 23:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Mentioning Auckland in first sentence

Currently the first sentence reads

Christchurch (/ˈkraɪstʃɜːrtʃ/ ^ⓘ; Māori: Ōtautahi) is the largest city in the South Island and the second-largest city by urban area population in New Zealand, after Auckland.

I question if it worthwhile to mention who is in first place. Seeing as the Auckland wiki does not mention who is second. Whilst Wellington does not mention Auckland being the first and only mentions Christchurch within the footnote on boundary totals.

Plus details on order of cities is in the second-largest city link. Unclesi86 (talk) 01:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree and I have removed mention of Auckland from the first sentence. Schwede66 02:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

City brand logo

Recently the city has gained an official city brand logo. [1]

This is a logo that is agreed on by local stakeholders to represent the city.

And on city pages like Porto, Amsterdam, and Helsinki have their own brandmarks beside the city flags and coat of arms.

What information is needed for this to happen? Unclesi86 (talk) 02:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I realize that since it's everywhere in the city. I'm unsure why Roger 8 Roger removed it with the summary being "original research" when it doesn't really make sense. I have no objections to that logo. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 02:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

It's promotional, has no independent notability. These sort of things come and go over time, some stick but most fade away never to be seen again. This article is about Christchurch, not the comings and goings of various committees of the CCC. If this logo is still around in ten years time we can reassess its inclusion then. What other articles on WP do is of no relevance here. The infobox is for the absolutely essential facts relevant to the article, and this promotional logo isn't one of them. What is your connection with it? Did you or your company design it? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I just think if the Amsterdam article has a brandmark... the Christchurch article could also have it. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 04:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Think of it as the 21st century version of a coat of arms which were also developed as a way to give cities a unique identity https://teara.govt.nz/en/interactive/23508/civic-coats-of-arms

It is currently across the city as @Alexeyevitch says with work being done to implement it more.

And yes i am part of the work, but hopefully that doesn't lessen the need for it to be on WP Unclesi86 (talk) 04:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's true, and I don't see a problem with including the logo. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 04:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I also see nothing wrong with including the city logo. We appear to have consensus for inclusion, so let's do it. Schwede66 05:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 05:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Parks & nature section

My view is that the Parks & nature section needs a total rewrite. Given the historic branding of Christchurch as the "Garden City", the existing content about Parks warrants a top level heading (it doesn't really fit under Culture), and significant expansion is justified. I don't think the existing coverage meets the GA criteria for breadth of coverage. I could have a go at this over the next couple of weeks, unless there are other editors who are keen. What would you like to see under "Parks".? I am also unsure about including content about "nature". Christchurch is not really known for endemic species, although there are notable places like Riccarton Bush, plus (near-threatened) black-billed gulls in the city area, and (endangered) Hector's dolphins in Lyttlelton Harbour. Any suggestions for how to treat this aspect ? _Marshelec (talk) 06:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Article improvements

The content was previously was dull and unencyclopedic - should be better now. I don't think this meets the B and GA criteria at the moment. It could take weeks or prehaps months to get the article up to a 'good quality' standard. Copyediting is welcome. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)