Nightingale, Melissa (9 May 2018). "Battle of the macrons for Wikipedia spelling of Paekākāriki". The New Zealand Herald. Retrieved 29 May 2018. A battle over the use of macrons on the Wikipedia page for a small town in Kāpiti is sparking hot debate online, even from people who don't live there. Arguments began on a Wikipedia discussion page ...
WikiProject New Zealand was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 3 October 2011. If you wish to get involved with the Signpost, please visit the Newsroom.
I have started a discussion at Talk:Northland Regional Council#Māori name? regarding a discrepancy between the Māori name used in the article and its official name, along with Māori Wikipedia's name. Fork99 (talk) 00:43, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
Renaming articles for auckland’s city rail link this sunday
Hi, I’m from the OpenStreetMap community, I’m wondering what the plan is for renaming or replacing the articles for Auckland’s train lines, which will all change this sunday when the City Rail Link opens.
the Southern Line article will be renamed to the Suck Line
the Onehunga Line article will be renamed to the Ow Line
is this correct? If so, we can update OpenStreetMap so that the wikipedia infobox works on day 1
Thanks —Aebion (talk) 00:39, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
Thanks, Aebion. Those are excellent questions and I love the collaborative thinking. I'm by far not the most active editor when it comes to this topic area, but I'm happy to share a few thoughts on process.
Whether we "abandon" the Eastern and Western article, or rather whether we merge the content from these articles into the East-West Line article is something that will need to be discussed. My personal feeling is that the two older article have some depth to them, and it could be considered keeping them. Just changing them to past tense and noting that they became part of the East-West Line. The latter would thus function as the current article and the two older article document the history / what happened prior.
The question of renaming the Southern and Onehunga line article is also not straightforward. Wikipedia goes with the concept of common name, and an official name changing and the common name changing usually happens at different times. What usually hapens is some discussion first, and once consensus is reached that the common name has changed, that's when renaming happens. Therefore, you should assume that Southern Line and Onehunga Line will keep their names for a wee while.
Other editors may of course see things differently, but I thought I'd kick the discussion off based on my view of what's likely to happen. Once again, thanks for being pro-active about this. Schwede66 04:40, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
I agree with keeping the articles for the Eastern and Western Lines as history, and having a new article for the East-West (E-W) Line. I see no reason why the same would not happen for the old Onehunga Line and old Southern Line, with new articles for the Onehunga-West (O-W) Line and the South City (S-C) Line. The new Onehunga-West Line will now go to Maungawhau, with off-peak services continuing to Henderson, whereas the old Onehunga Line terminated latterly at Newmarket and previously at Britomart (now Waitematā) as it was then called. The old Southern Line went directly to Waitematā via Parnell, whereas the new South-City Line will have travel from Pukekohe to Newmarket and then via Grafton and the CRL to terminate at Newmarket, with some peak services terminating at Waitematā; and the opposite direction from Newmarket via Parnell and the CRL back to Newmarket and continuing to Pukekohe. In my opinion, all three new lines are sufficiently different from the old four lines to warrant new articles. Paora (talk) 12:38, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
I also agree that all the old articles should be kept, as they refer to historic lines that are not the same thing as the new lines MangoMan11 (talk) 13:04, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
After a discussion with the local OpenStreetMap community, we decided to re-use our relations for the Southern Line and Onehunga Line, since they are basically the same line, with just a few extra stops added on one end.
on the Southern Line and Onehunga Line pages: Template:Maplink will soon show the extended line. Obviously we can adjust this once a conclusion is reached on the wikipedia side.
Cheers --Aebion (talk) 08:50, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
They should all be merged into a single Auckland Passenger Rail Services article. Fundamentally it's a network, so the services are best understood in the context of one another; their histories are intertwined, and the services will evolve together in the future.
I'm not doing the work though, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Confuciou (talk) 02:47, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping Nurg—I had indeed missed this discussion. Apologies for not linking to the merge discussion from here myself! Tomiĉo (talk) 09:40, 13 September 2026 (UTC)
Kia ora, we will be having a meetup in Christchurch this Sunday 10am at Scoundrel. Come along if you're in town! David Palmer//cloventt(talk) 21:22, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
NZ bird recordings
Hello, for anyone interested in birbs, I have just done a bulk import of bird song from the DoC website to commons. You can see them all in this Commons category. Still a slight WIP but provides an easy way to add samples of birdsong to our endemic bird articles. David Palmer//cloventt(talk) 03:10, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
Nice. Might be worth mentioning at WT:BIRD. Been mulling getting tomtit to FA one day myself. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 03:13, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
Note: some of these have been already uploaded in dribs and drabs over the years, so there are some duplicates. David Palmer//cloventt(talk) 04:23, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
Te Wiki o te Reo Māori - Books of Mana project
Kia ora. If you are looking for something to do for Te Wiki o te Reo Māori, I recently started an ongoing project called Books of Mana. I've tried to set it up to be accessible to everyone so there are in-depth directions on the project page, but it is fairly straight-forward work, making sure pages for authors and editors say that a book is listed as one of the most significant, citing Books of Mana as the source. You can sign up here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/OU/Division_of_Humanities/Books_of_Mana if you want to help (make sure to sign up to the dashboard too). Most of these books probably meet WP:NBOOK, so eventually I'd love to see all 180 books with their own pages, but so far we're up to three (two of which predate the project). DrThneed (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
In 2025 X was recognised as one of the 180 most significant works of Māori-authored non-fiction. is an inappropriate claim to be made in Wikivoice, this is a subjective claim and should be clearly attributed to the source, much like we do with other awards and reconditions. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:04, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
The source is clearly attributed after that sentence; there's a citation of Books of Mana. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 07:42, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
I don't really see it the same way @Traumnovelle but I've adjusted the suggestion to "was listed in Books of Mana as one of the 180 most significant works" which I hope both allays your concern and keeps the sentence short enough not to be too clumsy when an author has multiple listed works. DrThneed (talk) 00:33, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
It does, thank you. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
Hi, just to let you know that I'm running The Asia-Oceania Destubathon in November. £2000 (about US$ 2,689.54) in prizes. It would be great to see a lot of NZ editors participating as it's a good opportunity to see a lot of content improved for New Zealand and Oceania with prizes. Sign up if interested anyway, thanks. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:21, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
Hiya! If anyone is interested there is currently a Wiki Loves Peace campaign being run by the WiR at the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNDODA) for photos of monuments/public art/memorials etc. to do with peace. If anyone is interested in participating, here's the event link. Have a great day! SydneyBridgeUpsideDown (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Does anyone have experience with 360 degree photos? I've been thinking for a few years about creating a New Zealand Wikimedia version of Google Street view. I'm not satisfied with the other free street mapping projects such as mapillary and kartaview as (at least in Wellington) they're all 2D photos. After uploading almost 2,000 photos to Commons, mostly Wellington buildings, I'm wondering if 360 degree photos is something I want to work on, and it may be something other people would want to work on in other locations. I just don't have any experience with 360 degree cameras. Any thoughts? ―Panamitsu(talk) 07:09, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
There is a Commons Photographer User Group (CPUG). I know about them because they had meetings at Wikimania Paris. Maybe have a snoop around Commons. Some of them had fancy cameras. Schwede66 07:27, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
360 degree photos is a thing that the OpenStreetMap folks are quite interested in, there's at least one Auckland-based mapper uploading them to Mapillary on a regular basis. There's also been some chatter on hosting a Panoramax (FOSS alternative to KartaView/Mapillary) for NZ. There's an Oceania channel in this Discord server where most of the NZ mappers hang out. applecuckoo(he/him) 08:04, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks! This is really useful. ―Panamitsu(talk) 08:07, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi, this is an interesting concept. How would you integrate it into OSM and how as someone who creates 360 imagery know I should choose that channel over Mapillary?
Mapillary already has a 3d only filter, privacy settings and a lot of users, as do others so I am not 100% sure why you wouldn't go with another already in place option, but I am a west Islander so I may not have all the nuances.
Thanks that 360 degree filter is exactly what I was looking for. I'll look into something like that instead of Commons. ―Panamitsu(talk) 11:18, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
Commons has support for 360 photos, theres a template you can add to enable the viewer. I tried it once before. David Palmer//cloventt(talk) 08:42, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
I forgot to mention that my main motivation behind this is that I think it would be nice if Wikipedia articles had some sort of street view feature, for roads and trails mainly, similarly to how we have interactive maps, but I understand that many people would think that it's stretching the idea of what an encyclopaedia is too much. ―Panamitsu(talk) 11:36, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
Gun law
Hi everyone, I am working on updating the Gun law in New Zealand article. I think I might need a bit of help on identifying what areas need updating. I also plan to create a draft article for the new Arms Act 2026, which replaces the now repealed Arms Act 1983. Feel free to help if you have some knowledge of NZ firearms legislation. Andykatib (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Even if it were warranted, wouldn't this be a very short article that could be done in a few minutes by one person? A quick google search of 'Arms Act 2026 NZ' shows of the first thirty or so websites only a couple are not govt, legislation, police, parliament - and even those are not really secondary, such as › news› explainer-arms-act-2026 'Franks Ogilvie - Commercial & Public Law'. Until this new law obtains some sort of notability wouldn't it be better to wait? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:47, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi @Roger 8 Roger:, thanks for your advice. I will instead work on updating the Gun law in New Zealand article to include the new Arms Act 2026. Will wait for the new law to obtain some notability before publishing it. Andykatib (talk) 20:01, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Women in Green
The Women in Green campaign aims to bring core articles on women and women's works up to Good Article (GA) status. Editors are needed for the Around the World in 31 Days edit-a-thon this October, to help nominate and/or review articles about women from at least 31 different countries, and we'd love to see Aotearoa represented!
Want to get other NZ editors involved? WANZ is happy to help with setting up online meetings, getting the word out etc. Contact us at info@wikimedia.nz
- Ngā mihi, Sophie from WANZHillmenco (talk) 02:09, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Tagged for notability concerns for 7 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Poorly sourcedBLP; we are not LinkedIn.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi there, @OrdinariusFingius: has proposed the deletion of the 2021 East Otago lead poisoning scare on the grounds that the article "consists of three paragraphs, and a nothingburger, it should be merged into the history of the town like other local poisoning scares." Personally, I am inclined to agree since the 2021 poisoning incident appears to have been little more than a storm in a teacup. The incident is also covered on the Waikouaiti and Karitane articles. Since we have a week before action is taken, I wanted to get some feedback from other Kiwi editors. Andykatib (talk) 08:45, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
I think there is no reason to delete it because it did received media coverage and as such has notability backed by secondary sources. The fact that it is of minor relevance is not relevant IMO. However, I would ask why the article was created, when a more informative article could have been created about the broader subject of water supply in Otago, its methodology, its history, its problems and so on. This poisoning scare would then fit neatly into that article, taking up only three or four lines, which is probably all it deserves. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:41, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi @Roger 8 Roger: and @Panamitsu:, thanks for your feedback. I agree with Roger that there might be a case for keeping the article based on the existence of secondary sources backing up its notability. I like the idea of an article on water supply in Otago that could incorporate the 2021 East Otago lead poisoning incident. That would require a good deal of work and someone with some expertise on that topic. On Panamitsu's point regarding the Queenstown cryptosporidiosis outbreak, I think that article has more notability than the East Otago lead incident. I remember that it attracted national coverage for a few weeks while the Otago lead poisoning incident seems to have mainly attracted the attention of local media over a shorter period. Andykatib (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Updates from Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand
Expressions of interest in WANZ grants for 2027/28 projects are due 31 October.
The Wikimedia Program & Event Dashboard development team want your feedback.
Ngā mihi, Sophie Hillmenco (talk) 04:32, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Upcoming Aotearoa New Zealand virtual Wiki Meetup
A reminder that the virtual Aotearoa New Zealand Wiki meetup is being held this Sunday the 18th of October at 10am. See the meetup page for more information. Ambrosia10 (talk) 06:37, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
St Paul's Cathedral edit war
Good morning everyone, I wanted to raise awareness about an Otago Daily Timesarticle about an ongoing edit war at the St Paul's Cathedral, Dunedin article. The article is locked behind a paywall but I will give a brief summary. An internal dispute within that church has led to the disbandment of its 100 year old choir. Presently, the edit was is between two users: @CryptologicalUriel: and @ActuallyCryptologicalUriel:. One user has edited the page to include a brief paragraph about the choir being stood down while the other has been deleting passage. If these two users are listening, I counsel them to back down and talk things out on the article's talk page or here. Given the media attention, I think we as a community need to deescalate this conflict. Andykatib (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
For those whose can access Pressreader via their library/school/uni/etc; you can also read it here. nilnz 21:28, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Both users are blocked so this is likely to be put to rest. If new users or TAs return the page should just be semi-protected. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for the update @Traumnovelle:, good to know those users have been dealt with. It seems like a storm in the tea cup that the Otago Daily Times decided to dramatise. I think one of the users must have created an account to troll other user. It seems those two users have unresolved offline business which they decided to take onto Wikipedia, which would not be the place. Hopefully St Paul's Cathedral resolves this dispute internally. Andykatib (talk) 23:40, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
What's up?
I'm new, what page should I make. Eesmot (talk) 03:20, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Personally I just look something up, and when I'm surprised that it's not on Wikipedia, I create an article for it. (More realistically, I add it to my todo list and create it after 2 years of procrastination). If you have no ideas there's a requested New Zealand articles list at Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Requested articles. When reading Wikipedia you may also find red links (they represent missing articles) and decide that you want to create articles for them. ―Panamitsu(talk) 05:01, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
As you're new, I recommend making improvements and additions to existing articles rather than creating a new article. I find that finding and fixing errors and making improvements and additions is just as satisfying – and less hard work – than creating new articles. Nurg (talk) 06:29, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
And also less scope to stuff up. Creating a new article is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. Schwede66 07:00, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Welcome to the Wikipedia NZ community! Further to what the above editors have noted, I'd say add to articles about your general interests or areas of knowledge. The more experienced you become, the more confident you'll become too. You could then submit an article as a draft once you feel confident enough to submit an article altogether. Drafting an article can be quite good for newer editors as this allows you to get feedback before your article is then moved into the mainspace.
I see you edited some football-related articles about Auckland FC. If you're interested in Auckland FC, you could look into the articles for their players. Are these articles comprehensive enough? Is there enough information about the clubs the players previously played for or where they're from? You could look at other NZ football-related articles. What is your local club and how does their article look? Most amateur/semiprofessional football clubs in New Zealand have stub articles that could definitely do with improving! JaumeBG(talk) 07:46, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Agree with many of the above comments. I suggest you spend 90% of your time preparing what you are going to add to an article. Unlike some others, I suggest you do not find a 'missing' article from a list and create it because it is missing. Stick to your own level, whether that is typo fixing, tables of football results, or quantum mechanics: there's no point trying to create an article about a certain fish unless you have a basic knowledge of marine life. Two ideas to start - One, check what is written in an article is actually what the source used is saying: IMO this frequently is not the case. Two, remove so called fluff text that actually means nothing and just devalues an article. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:53, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
I didn't make my first article until after I'd amassed quite a few edits. I'd recommend starting with just reading Wikipedia and fixing minor errors you come across before moving onto more substantial rewrites of existing but poorly phrased information (whilst checking the citation to ensure you do not change any meanings), then move onto working on adding content/improving content on existing articles before writing an article. Most editors who jump straight into creating an article have it declined.
I recommend sticking to your comfort zone and what you are both familiar with and interested in, if you have no mathematics background you aren't going to be able to do much to improve Bayes' theorem for example and if you edit topics you are not interested in it will become a chore and feel unrewarding. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
I think the most important things to be aware of when writing content is verifiability, i.e. is the content you write directly backed up by a citation that confirms the fact and close paraphrasing. You need to write content in your own words but all factual information must be supported by the citation. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
"Most editors who jump straight into creating an article have it declined." Oh yes definitely, I have heard of people getting discouraged by this and leaving Wikipedia because of it. I think the advice about not creating new articles immediately is good and I'd pay attention to that. Quite a few of the first articles I created really did not belong on Wikipedia and were deleted. ―Panamitsu(talk) 22:05, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Welcome! Great to have you here. I find it easiest to start with existing articles on topics you are knowledgeable/passionate about and make improvements where you can. David Palmer//cloventt(talk) 19:52, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
An easy way to find things to do is keep an eye on news stories because there is often info that can be used to update pages about people or places e.g. opening of new buildings, awards made in sports or arts, new books or music. Then you get to write a bit, add references and create links. But only news from reliable sources, e.g. Herald, Stuff, ODT, RNZ, TVNZ, not Facebook or other social media/personal blogs. Gertrude206 (talk) 05:56, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
I would caution against using newspapers to find something to do, even though it is what many people do. Choose a topic first and then look for sources. Newspapers also have to be treated with care - what they publish ranges from a very good secondary source article to gossip primary source rubbish. They also usually write in newspaper English which has to be distilled into encyclopedic English, something that rarely happens. Also, that newspaper approach is not the best way to learn how to use wikipedia. Most media sources report on the current news that might look important today but in the wider scheme of things is not. You need to understand wp:weight and wp:balance and similar concepts, which filling up an article with hour by hour news does not teach you. See Katie Zacharia for example. In five years time, when her relevance and notability can be better and objectively assessed, a lot of what has been put into that article in the last few days will be almost irrelevant and should probably be removed. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:38, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Congrats to Panamitsu for passing Featured Article review
A huge congratulations to @Panamitsu for successfully getting the article Christopher Morcom through the Featured Article review process. This is a rare and difficult accomplishment. Morcom was the childhood friend/crush of Alan Turing, who died at the age of 18. Well done, Panamitsu! AxonsArachnida (talk)
Yes, a tidy article. Where is the notability to warrant an article? Being a friend of Turing isnt enough. What has this guy actually done? There is a brief primary source page about him by a society and mention of him elsewhere within sources about someone else, such as in your only cited work which is a biography of Turing. It seems to me that this article would be better merged into another article, such as the one about Turing. Sorry to be negative but I'm surprised this article was ever created (not by you, I know). Where is the debate prior allowing it to stand as a article or to making it a feature article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger 8 Roger (talk • contribs) 22:14, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Roger 8 Roger you can nominate the article for deletion if you want. ―Panamitsu(talk) 22:38, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Where is the debate prior allowing it to stand as a article or to making it a feature article? Its Featured article candidate page should hopefully answer those questions. nilnz 23:14, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Roger is referring to debate on the notability of the article, which wasn't part of the FA. FAs aren't immune to AfD/notability and I believe an FA has been deleted at AfD before, I know FLs have. But debating the notability of a non-NZ topic is off-topic and unnecessary for this talk page. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:28, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
An excellent article and fascinating read, nice work indeed! nilnz 23:16, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for the link nil, which confirms my concern. I will continue comments on the article's talk page. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:47, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Impressive achievement @Panamitsu, well done! I always enjoy reading your articles. An NZ topic next?? :D Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Great work Panamitsu, nicely done! I wish I had your ability to persevere through the FAN process... Turnagra (talk) 09:28, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Flamingo e-scooters
For the past week and a half I have slowly been working on the draft Draft:Flamingo (company). This afternoon Roger 8 Roger commented on the talk page, suggesting that Flamingo does not meet the notability criteria and that the article should not be created. Before I work on the article any more, I want to ask people here: does Flamingo meet Wikipedia's notability criteria? Should an article be created about it or not?
And an extra note for Roger 8 Roger: please read WP:FOLLOWING as your Flamingo comment appears to have a connection to what you said yesterday about the Christopher Morcom article. ―Panamitsu(talk) 06:04, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
I have just seen this page after posting on the draft talk page. This is concerning because I did not say Flamingo was not notable, and understanding what a writer (such as a written source) is saying is a fundemental requirement of using wikipedia. My suggestions were meant to be helpful, but you don't seem able to understand that. I chanced on that draft, so don't accuse me of following you. The draft talk page is the place to discuss, not hear. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:45, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
It looks like I might have misinterpreted what you wrote on the draft talk page. I'll have a closer look another time. ―Panamitsu(talk) 07:56, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
To be fair to Panamitsu, I can see how they would make such a connection given the reception you gave their recently featured article only a day or two ago. Yes, they should've assumed good faith, but happening upon a draft article of theirs and also commenting on notability would seem like a big coincidence given the timing. Turnagra (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Flamingo pretty easily passed WP:NCORP just from looking at the sources linked in the draft. David Palmer//cloventt(talk) 08:18, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
I have read and re-read that section of the guide and I am really not seeing whatever point you’re trying to make. David Palmer//cloventt(talk) 09:22, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't think WP:PRODUCT means what you think it means. All that would say in this context in my view is that we wouldn't have separate articles for Flamingo the company and Flamingo the e-scooter service, which isn't what's happening here. Turnagra (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
The guideline would be WP:NCORP and based solely on the sources in the article I would say no.
Inside Government describes itself as 'an online publication that provides a bridge for businesses around the world to get in front of decision makers throughout the New Zealand government.'
The NZ Herald isn't any in-depth coverage of Flamingo.
EVs & Beyond appears to be a press release and it has no editorial policy which is a massive red flag.
An NZDF press release about a cooperation with Flamingo would be non-independent.
I haven't looked at the Stuff coverage to see if it meets WP:CORPDEPTH but I have assumed it does over the many articles. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:20, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Would you consider these to be in-depth coverage of Flamingo? There are Stuff articles about Flamingo launching in various cities but they aren't actually that useful.
Honestly, even if Flamingo is notable, I'm not really satisfied with it. If it's notable, it's only borderline notable and it would be a very short article. And as it's been said a few sources describe e-scooters in general rather than just Flamingo. So I do think Roger 8 Roger's suggestion of creating an article about the shared micromobility industry in NZ is a fair one. ―Panamitsu(talk) 09:49, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Herald yes, Stuff piece kind of seems like the industry promotional journalism to me, but I can see other editors disagreeing on that.
>creating an article about the shared micromobility industry in NZ
I was going to suggest that, but I didn't know what the term actually was for it. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Agreed, Micromobility in New Zealand would be a great article. But Flamingo deserve at least a stub I would have thought. David Palmer//cloventt(talk) 18:55, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
My point is that Flamingo does in fact have notability, only just, but not enough to bother making an artical about it alone. It's better to make a larger article about the wider topic of introduction and usage of electric scooters in NZ. That would then including Beam and Lime, and various other issues, including the detail of restricted speed. What you have added into your draft would fit into that wider article but only take up a couple of lines. I think there should be at least one secondary source that discusses electric scooters in reasonable detail, not just short non-informative newspaper articles like the ones you have in your draft. If no such better RSS exists then don't bother making an article yet about e-xcooters. There are countless other articles to create about topics for which there are plenty of good secondary sources. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:37, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Improving contributions to NZ articles
There is a mindset with some editors (but only some), that it's fine to create or add to as many articles as possible with a subject link to NZ and that all you need is to find something online that mentions the article's subject. This leads to the use of low-quality references that create low quality articles, often barely notable. Sifting through the local newspaper is a good example of how this is done. I suggest that it is more important to add better sources and to try to structure an article properly, (even if it might need to be 'tidied up') than it is to create a polished article with nice photos and lots of tables of data, that is not backed by good sources and with no attention given to weighting or paraphrasing the source. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a scrap book! Wouldn't it be better to focus on these fundemental points than to cram in as much stuff as possible. A suggestion is to have a group project for editors to look at existing articles that have become filled with irrelevant detail and low quality sources, and focus on cleaning them up. That will often require removing a lot of detail and sources. I'm afraid that whenever I raise this concern I get critised by some who appear to be missing the point. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:43, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
There are more constructive and appropriate ways to provide this feedback; without any positive or negative examples this thread is almost certainly going to just delve into pointless bickering. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:13, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Wellington Wiki in person meetup - Saturday 24th October
A reminder that the Te Whanganui-a-Tara Wellington in person Wiki meet up will be held this Saturday the 24th of October at 10am at Te Matapihi ki te Ao Nui, Wellington Central Library in Room Te Kuaka - Hui 4 (1.06) on the first floor. More information can be found at this linkAmbrosia10 (talk) 04:14, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Ongaonga (Urtica ferox) has passed Featured Article review
Huge congratulations to @Alexeyevitch for successfully getting Ongaonga (Urtica ferox) through the Featured Article review process. U. ferox is a plant anyone who has walked through the forest will be familiar with, often for unpleasant reasons. It is also the host plant for the New Zealand red admiral. Well done Alex, this was an impressive feat. AxonsArachnida (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Congrats! Seems it's the season for WPNZ and new Featured Articles. Turnagra (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Fabulous work! Great pictures on that article, and TIL it has been responsible for at least two human deaths (!). Chocmilk03 (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Thank you! I normally don't like being thrown into the limelight, but I really appreciate it from you all. Well done to you too for promoting New Zealand red admiral to FA. Very interesting, and closely linked to U. ferox and other Urtica. Alexeyevitch(talk) 01:33, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Kia ora - I'm doing a bit of cleanup on WPNZ articles and came across this one that I'm keen to get other views on. I'm not a big BLP editor but it feels like there are some pretty significant issues with the article, which I've explained a bit more on the talk page if anyone is willing to take a look. Cheers, Turnagra (talk) 09:32, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Reminder - upcoming Asia-Oceania Destubathon starts 1 November
Just reminding to editors that the Wikipedia:The_Asia-Oceania_Destubathon is commencing on the 1st of November. This is great opportunity to improve the quality of articles related to New Zealand and other countries in our region. Ambrosia10 (talk) 16:36, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Joined! Let's see how we go. Hopefully a few of us NZers can make a good impact. JaumeBG(talk) 09:11, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I've signed up too... Will work on NZ species:) Stitchbird2 (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Sorry, I think I'll be more than busy with getting new MP bios up to scratch. Schwede66 21:18, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Stephen Franks
Hi there, I have been working on expanding and adding more sources to the Stephen Franks article. I have added references to the 2005 and 2008 election section as well as the post-political career section. There is one reference error that I can't seem to fix on the page. For some sections relating to his post-political career and private life, I drew upon a 2008 election pamphlet and his page on his law firm Frank Ogilvie's website. Not sure if these would meet Wikipedia standards of reliability. I also plan to update the article to include his involvement as chair of the Free Speech Union (New Zealand) and legal work opposing gender-reassignment surgery, which have some NZ media coverage. Andykatib (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Per WP:ABOUTSELF the personal life section is fine. Personally I'd consider claims relating to alma mater to require an RS as people do sometimes lie about these, although some might disagree with that. I'd find it odd if no RS covered his alma mater despite being a two-term member of parliament, ditto for his chairman position.
The ref error was due to a tag not being closed, but oddly the error displayed for the wrong reference for some reason. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:05, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi @Traumnovelle:, thanks for fixing the reference error. I will see if I can find reliable secondary sources for the alma mater claims. Cheers. Andykatib (talk) 02:50, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm working with Venture Timaru for the next month or so to improve content on Timaru District, including Timaru itself, Geraldine, and Peel Forest. They're releasing some images from their photo library, supplying published sources, and have identified the topics they'd most like to see improved, but are have agreed to be hands-off during the project and not give any editorial input. If you're interested, check out the project page and sign up to help. — Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 21:00, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
