Talk:Papakura District/Archive 1

Why I reverted

Later revisions had the following flaws:

• somehow the tabulated data and map were destroyed, so I restored them
• the list of schools may be helpful, but I'm wondering if it really belongs in this article
• the list of suburbs was not necessary -- most suburbs are already listed under 'Papakura District' section. This was meant to be a readable Encyclopedic article, not a collection of boring lists.
• spiels about beaches and train routes, that would be more appropriate elsewhere
• incorrect statistics quoted

I've added links to the 2001 and 2006 Census results, and updated some stats in the infobox. (Note: this comment was made a week ago, but someone mangled it. ~ ~ Papeschr 12:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC) )

Messy and irrelevant

The current revision is poorly written and includes information irrelevant to Papakura. There are also factual inaccuracies such as "City of Papakura". Papakura is not a city, it is officially a district. I don't know how to revert to an older version, so can somebody else please arrange this?

Protected

I semi-protected the page due to vandalism that seems to be happening on a daily basis. Please stop. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Firstly, it's not 'vandalism' it's correction. I found the previous article on Papakura incorrect, as a resident of the suburb, Papakura WAS 'officially' a district but is now considered a city. Yes i agree there were some irrelevant information pieces, and incorrect statistics but now i have improved it. i found your 'flaws' EXTREMELY rude and totally unecessary. There is absolutely no need to 'protect' this article! I will continue to make my corrections, until it stays that way. Please leave the article alone.

No I am not going to. The changes you have made have completely messed up the formatting if anything else. I'm going to fully protect the page, so then you discuss the changes you want here instead of making the page a complete mess over and over again. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I fully protected the page. Discuss the changes you want here instead of messing up the formatting over and over again. I'm being very nice here as I could very easily block you for your behavior. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply 2

Very well if you feel my behaviour has been rude then do what you have 2 do. I do not believe your page on papakura is fully correct.

My problem is that you keep putting the entire article inside of the infobox. We don't do that here. That's all I care about. I just ran across this page. I don't have any real interest in it outside of keeping the article outside of the infobox. If you avoid that, we're cool. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

uumm what's an infobox?

I figured that's what the problem was. See that box on the right hand side with the basic information on the area? That's an infobox. What you kept doing is that when you pasted your information in, you removed the |} from the formatting and that put the entire article into that infobox. I reverted back to your version but I fixed it so the infobox shows up correctly now. I'm not endorsing your version. And btw, please sign your posts with --~~~~ Thanks. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The article as you have it is ugly and it contains information we don't need, so I"m sure someone else will revert your changes. I just wanted to fix it so you didn't have the entire article in the infobox. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, please read Wikipedia:Citing_sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not - your changes break all of these to some extent. For example, I might cite [[1]] to confirm that Papakura is a district not a city. dramatic 10:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep. As I said, Dramatic, if you want to revert the changes he made, I won't object. I was just trying to show him the mistake he was making that was causing the entire article to be in the infobox. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes i do understand that officially papakura is a district but living in papakura and as my mother works for the council they are recognized in papakura: as a city council, although this is unofficial "PAPAKURA CITY COUNCIL" has been printed all over the city center e.g on billboards, trash bins etc. I have made a fool of myself, and i am sorry, i really DEEPLY apologize for my behaviour. i believe my changes are correct but you can 'revert' or whatever it's called.

yesWoohookitty your right i have totally mucked up the infobox. its far too wide!

By the way, User:BOi-sOLe, I am also from Papakura. It hasn't officially been a city since the 1989 Local Government reforms. One day I hope this article is as nice as Invercargill, a similarly-sized place. I appreciate some of your contributions but a lot of them have degraded my hard work. For example, the list of suburbs could be put into the section 'Wards'. The 'City authority' section does not belong here. Only 2 or 3 of your 29 links are especially related to Papakura. ~ ~ Papeschr 12:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

New Article

YES! The new article on Papakura is amazing! It's very well written and has excellent information. Much, much better. I found the details interesting and educational. it is no longer a whole lot of boring lists, it actually seems like an encyclopedia article. Well-done!!

Please change map

Hey could somebody please change the article's map to the papakura one please i think i accidentally deleted it when i was fixing a mistake and now it's gone back to auckland city's one. could somebody correct the image name ? i got it wrong it's not File:PapakuraDistrict.jpg is it?

please leave suburb list

after visiting auckland city and manukau city's article,. i found papakura didn't have a list of suburbs like they did so i re-added the small list. please leave in the article.

The reasons we are removing it is that it duplicates the preceding paragraph, which is closer to the conventional presentation for suburbs: (they should be listed clockwise from north, using multiple rings if necessary - see Christchurch for an example) - this takes up less vertical space. dramatic 20:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Warning - Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board#Edit war at Papakura

• Sometimes it is difficult to find a difference between some Auckland ikipedia-admins, and a certain ikipedia-stalker.

IPv6:6h9 01:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What r u on about?

ok

ok will do frm north (clockwise) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.150.120.112 (talk • contribs) .

You seem to have missed the most important point dramatic made above: that we don't want to cover the suburbs twice. The choice is between having either a long list of bullet points, or a list condensed into a few paragraphs of prose. Not both! -- Avenue 14:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

??

what is the problem dramatic?

myself and a group of papakura citizens have worked extremely hard to clean up this papakura article. what is the big problem??????? we are ALL from papakura and are taking this situation very seriously, there is nothing incorrect about this page and it is very much like an encyclopedia article! for godness sake get over it, it doesn't need anymore work.!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.150.111.232 (talk • contribs)

It could do with some pictures of Papakura. If you have a digital camera, then get some local shots for the article.-gadfium 04:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

1. - Irrelevant images - such as the coat of arms of a neighboring council and a photograph of a motorway junction and buildings that is 30km outside the area (ironic given the lenghts you are collectively going to to identify Pap as a city independent of Auckland). As gadfium says, take some photos of Papakura itself and use them to illustrate the article. (I would have when I was there last week but was rused for time).
2. - Errors of verifiable fact. Papakura is now a district. Manukau, Waitakere and North shore are called cities because they are constituted as such. Papakura doesn't qualify under any other criteria either, such as being physically separate (its contiguous with Manukau) or independent (lets face it, the CBD is much smaller than that of standalone centres of comparable size such as Wanganui, Whangarei or New Plymouth, so Papakura depends on neighbouring areas for much of its infrastructure). We're happy to report that Papakura was a city for 10 or so years (why did someone delete the references?) but it isn't any more. Get over it. (Note that there are many incorrect references to Papakura City on the net - news of the 1989 changes seems to have been delayed in some parts)
3. - unnecessary duplication. There is no need for two lists of suburbs! And the prose style list is a much nicer presentation - bulleted lists tend to stop people reading.
4. - general style. Much of the content sounds like a promotional brochure from the local business association, and isn't the sort of stuff that featured articles are born of.
5. - lack of content in areas that matter. All towns have schools, swimming pools etc, and they may be taken for granted (unless there is something particularly notworthy about one). What tends to make an area unique and worth reading about is a rich history, which I'm sure Papakura has, but it isn't researchable on the internet. However, you are on the spot and probably have excellent sources in local libraries (just please don't quote things verbatim and do cite references).
6. Attitude - It's not "your" article, and the fact that you live there doesn't give you any greater rights than those of us who don't. We are only paying attention to this article because we want it to be good, not to put you down. I suggest you take a look at The Catlins, which through a collaborative effort reached a standard where it featured on the front page of Wikipedia. dramatic 12:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

gosh

no need for the attitude mista!!! gosh go get sum councilling or sumthing.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.150.124.104 (talk • contribs)

..

there is no longer two lists of suburbs and the new article includes more paragraphs on core issues eg Communication.

I have removed the entire section on communications because it doesn't say anything that is not true for any New Zealand urban area. So we either insert a similar section with appropriate name change in the articles on Manukau City, Pukekohe, Invercargill ad infinitum (boring everyone silly in the process) or we use common sense and put it in an article Telecommunications in New Zealand which is where anyone after such information is most likely to look. Locality articles should mention departures from the norm: e.g. "Haast has no mobile telephone coverage and only one terrestrial television channel" or this article might mention a community radio station based in Papkura and focused on the district. (but listing all the radio stations that can be heard all over Auckland as well as in Papakura would NOT be a good idea). Also, the section was full of unencyclopedic language. dramatic 11:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the whole thing back to Gadfium's last version. The removal of duplicate suburb listings could be seen as an improvement, but several other errors were being introduced. And I think the consensus above has been to get rid of the bullet point list of suburbs, not the prose listing. Please make smaller edits that don't go against the consensus. -- Avenue 11:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)