Jump to content

Talk:Christchurch

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mentioning Auckland in first sentence

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yes, that's true, and I don't see a problem with including the logo. Alexeyevitch(talk) 04:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
 Done. Alexeyevitch(talk) 05:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parks & nature section

[edit]

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)[reply]

Article improvements

[edit]

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)[reply]

I think we need a citation blitz. A lot of statements are currently uncited, but could be. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 01:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked?

[edit]

I appear to be blocked from the main page of this article and the New Zealand article. Anybody else having having trouble with edits? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger 8 Roger I have just made a small edit successfully. I hope you can get this resolved promptly._Marshelec (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks as though your edit this morning went through fine? Turnagra (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thanks, I see it has gone through now. Initially it did't go through which seemed unusual. A few days ago I made some edits to 'New zealand' which also did not go through. I'll let it be and move on. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christchurch Politics

[edit]

Should we add a section on Christchurch's politics? The city tends to be more conservative than the rest of New Zealand TheodosiusM (talk) 02:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does the government section not already serve this purpose? ―Panamitsu (talk) 05:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I meant my page was not properly loading when I made that comment,
Thanks for your help anyway! TheodosiusM (talk) 06:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]