Talk:Opawa
 | Opawa is currently a Places good article nominee. Nominated by Alexeyevitch(talk) at 05:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC) Anyone who has not contributed significantly to (or nominated) this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page. (See here for the good article instructions.) Short description: Suburb of Christchurch, New Zealand |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | 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. |
|
Hansen Park
edit@user:Alexeyevitch This follows discussion on the Christchurch talk page yesterday... This should give you an idea of a notable feature of Hanson Park, the Opawa Loop and flooding problems of the Heathcote. It is not a proper secondary source but it is good enough for now. I suggest look at similar sources to get a better overview of the history of Opawa and the issues that make it what it is today. There is more to Opawa than a few listed buildings. There are also notable buildings that are not listed. Being listed is not an exclusive mark of notability. This source will also be useful for other parts of the Heathcote such as in the Beckenham Loop that still has major flooding issues. It will also be useful for a special section in the article about the river, if one doesn't exist, and for an article on Christchurch land fill sites. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, if there are more notable buildings plz provide suggestions about the listed houses. Need a new image in the infobox, ideally a high-res image of the main retail area (other articles tend to do this). This is a good history book about the suburb but it is in-library use only. Also this article needs to be engaing to (especially to international readers), it doesn't matter how boring and ordinary Opawa may appear on the surface, the WP article should be interesting/engaging to readers. Thx. Alexeyevitch(talk) 10:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- If the link doesn't work go to Wikilibrary or elsewhere and search Oldfield, Isobel..The Hansen Park legacy. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Ōpāwaho / Heathcote River
edit@user:Alexeyevitch This is not about your fallback position of "the official name is not its common name" Maybe this rule needs to be ammended. This sentence "The Māori name for the area is "Ōpāwaho", it is also the name of the Ōpāwaho / Heathcote River" does not make sense unless the river is named as the linked article
- I will copy a bit of txt that Roger said a few days ago: "Please note the link to WP rules provided. The name to use is the commonly used and understood name by English speakers, as in the link provided. The official name of a place is not the name to use. If they are the same that is coincidental. I encourage you to create a user name and profile, it will help establish credibility." It is also discouraged to add Māori (or any other non-English) translations to articles which don't really need them... it fluffs up the article and might make it difficult to understand to non-NZ readers (e.g someone from HK). Aoraki / Mount Cook is obviously an excpetion to this. Alexeyevitch(talk) 06:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, I (usually) enjoy being quoted. The IP/Outis has illustrated just one of the problems caused by the decision of some NZ editors to try to accomodate the recent politically based name changes of NZGB - it doesn't work (and has caused countless hours of wasted time discussing the issue.) The simplest approach is to use the established names and mention the NZGB official name in the first sentence. The new official name should only be used if it has become established, which will rarely be the case. Contemporary official sources should not be used because they are not independent, which in practice means we will have to decide on a case by case basis for the very few names that ever do become borderline. Regarding the problems that arise from trying to placate the PC people, the confusion that arises from calling Opawa and the Heathcote River anything other than Opawa and the Heathcote is an obvious case in point. It won't be too long before use of these new names will, in some way, be restricted in law to apply common sense (much like the use of the new incomprehensible names of Crown Entities is being restricted). But, to stay on topic, yes, the name to use here and everywhere in Wikipedia is the commonly used and understood name, unless a specific situation requires otherwise. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)