Talk:Christchurch

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Christchurch article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3: 90 days

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 16, 2007.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

New Zealand: Māori Top‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Māori task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Section sizes

Section size for Christchurch (55 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	13,271	13,271
Toponymy	5,883	5,883
History	277	56,426
Pre-European settlement	7,949	7,949
European settlement	8,481	8,481
Provincial growth	14,584	14,584
Modern history	9,649	9,649
2010–11 earthquakes	6,996	6,996
Port Hills fires	1,682	1,682
2019 mosque shootings	6,808	6,808
Geography	135	30,307
Location	708	708
Geology	1,890	1,890
Aquifer and spring-fed streams	3,510	3,510
Central City	4,983	4,983
Suburbs	2,261	2,261
Satellite towns	1,219	1,219
Climate	15,601	15,601
Demographics	6,710	9,689
Culture and identity	2,979	2,979
Economy	70	18,102
Economic profile in 2023	3,493	3,493
Industry	3,888	3,888
Services for agriculture	5,110	5,110
Tourism	2,227	2,227
Gateway to the Antarctic	3,314	3,314
Government	15	4,010
Local government	2,910	2,910
Central government	1,085	1,085
Culture and entertainment	1,122	36,021
Cinema	4,194	4,194
Parks and nature	7,787	7,787
Theatre	6,684	6,684
Music	6,181	6,181
Venues	8,669	8,669
Festivals	1,384	1,384
Sport	4,728	4,728
Education	186	1,794
Secondary schools	1,313	1,313
Tertiary institutions	295	295
Transport	13,146	13,146
Utilities	15	14,403
Water supply	2,718	2,718
Wastewater	5,293	5,293
Electricity	2,969	2,969
Telecommunications	3,408	3,408
Media	3,362	3,362
Notable people	65	65
Sister cities	1,047	1,047
See also	179	179
References	15	2,086
Notes	26	26
Bibliography	2,016	2,016
Citations	29	29
External links	1,190	1,190
Total	215,709	215,709

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Mitchell, Charlie (15 January 2020). "Christchurch is New Zealand's second city, deal with it". The Press. Retrieved 15 January 2020. Earlier this week, a colleague of mine pointed out a grave miscarriage of justice – something was wrong on the internet. That something was Wikipedia, the wonderful online encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, in which errors are usually swiftly corrected. This was an exception; Its page for Christchurch incorrectly identified the city as the third-most populous in New Zealand. To any unassuming, New Zealand-curious reader, the rational conclusion would be that Wellington was the more populated city. A visit to the Wellington page provided confirmation; it is, apparently, "the second-most populous urban area of New Zealand".
Sarah Pollok (20 September 2023). "The most interesting cities in New Zealand and the world according to Wikipedia". The New Zealand Herald. Retrieved 21 September 2023. Nonetheless, if you're after a destination brimming with attractions, historical events and figures worth a page on Wikipedia, Christchurch is the place.

This article is written in New Zealand English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, analyse, centre, fiord) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Text and/or other creative content from Christchurch was copied or moved into History of Christchurch, New Zealand on 2 May 2024. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Archives

Index

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree and I have removed mention of Auckland from the first sentence. Schwede 66 02:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[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. Schwede 66 05:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]