Talk:Christchurch

Boundaries of Christchurch

In the lede and under Geography, Christchurch is described as being "bounded by the Banks Peninsula". That is confusing and wrong, I believe. The Banks Peninsula is part of Christchurch and it is bounded on all sides by the Pacific Ocean, or am I missing something here?  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

External link description

There is a tourist guidebook about Christchurch in the external link section that has been described on the link, correctly, informatively and unambiguously to the vast majority of readers, as 'Christchurch, Canterbury'. That description has recently been changed to something far less informative, adding a Maori name. To clarify - the correct name to use in the description of the linked website is the commonly used English name for what the linked site is about; the title of the guidebook and any official name are not necessarily the names to use - WP rules are quite clear about that. The guidebook is about Christchurch, the name used throughout the booklet. If CCC decides to use a mixed name for the guidebook's title - for legal or policy reasons - then that is pointedly contrary to common usage and has no bearing on WP. The guidebook's mixed title does not represent an NZGB official name anyway, making the use of it in a WP link even more contrary to common usage. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it'd be better to just change the text to the domain name, "ChristchurchNZ.com" as "Ōtautahi Christchurch" is really just the name of the place. The name of the organisation also appears to be "ChristchurchNZ".[1] ―Panamitsu (talk) 03:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Kia ora Roger, are you referring to my revert of your revert [2]? It's the website for ChristchurchNZ, which is the Christchurch City Council economic development agency. They're responsible for promoting Christchurch to tourists/investors. Their website features a prominent heading saying "Ōtautahi Christchurch", so I interpreted that as the correct title of their website.

I agree with Panamitsu that we could use the name of the org, which is ChristchurchNZ. The "Ōtautahi Christchurch" name seems to be part of an ongoing rebrand. [1] David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 03:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, 'Ōtautahi Christchurch' is appopriate here. The name of the organization itself might differ. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 04:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

We must be very clear. The name of the place in English is Christchurch. If anyone questions that we can ignore them much as we would ignore someone arguing that the world is flat. We don't even have the usual argument to fall back on that the official name is "Ōtautahi Christchurch" so we should use it. The External link text describes what is in the link isn't there to repeat the link's title or the name of the link's author (unless that is relevant to describing what the text is about). To use 'ChristchurchNZ' would be unnecessary and not informative. The reason the Maori name is there is twofold: first, it's to attract the attention of the tourist (who will probably be in Christchurch when reading it, making confusion less likely; second, because they publishers (ultimately CCC) are bound in law to promote the Maori language and this is the way they have chosen to do it - it's simple and effective. But this is Wikipedia and we are not constrained by either of those reasons - we are in fact encouraged not to get involved in such business and political considerations. Please consider that all this artificial use of non-English names is being undone by this government. How far that will go and if it will again be changed later, only time will tell, but it illustrates well why WP editors should avoid getting involved in the ever changing tide of political sentiment. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

How exactly is "Christchurch and Canterbury" more informative than "ChristchurchNZ.com" if the latter is the name of the website/organisaion and the former is a name you've made up? "Christchurch and Canterbury" has the same issue with the Maori name, which is that it is just the name of the place, and that is uninformative. ―Panamitsu (talk) 06:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Stop needed

@user:Alexeyevitch This might be the best place to comment. I thought it better to add it hear than your talk page. I accept it is being done in good faith but most of you edits to Christchurch suburbs are doing more harm than good. You are often using low quality inappropriate sources; not using those sources properly; adding a lot of original research; and often writing nonsense English that makes no sense. Will you please stop doing it because you are making the articles worse. It is better to have an empty article than one filled with stuff that is wrong or inappropriate. I'm not talking about the odd sentence or two, but whole sections. The latest one is a 'history' section of Opawa that is full of stuff that has nothing to do with Opawa. I respectfully suggest you simply add your sources to a section called sources (and learn how to do it), preferably sources that can easily be accessed online by others and leave it at that. Others can then use them if needed. It takes time to add (properly) relevant detail to an article. You have to have a general grasp of what the topic is about to make sure what you add is relevant and has the correct weighting. That requires at least some reading of many sources if you don't already know anything about the topic. It also sometimes means not even starting to edit a page because you don't have that background knowledge. How many editors have the depth of knowledge to make a positive contribution to an article about quantum mechanics, for example? Very few I suggest, meaning any contribution they make is likely to do more harm than good. So, please, stop you widespread additions, which I think amount to well-intentioned disruptive edits. Add your sources to a specific list - that alone will take time. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it might be a good time for a some people to read the Five pillars of the encyclopedia. Many NZ editors would realize that chch topics are my area interest.

Wikipedia is editable by anyone, regardless if you are 9y/o or 90y/o or if you are an expert in a paticular area of interest or not. As long if your contributions are postive then it's good.

I agree what David (Cloventt) stated a few weeks ago: "the indigenous occupation and use of the area of Christchurch before and during European settlement is relevant to the city. A reader of this article would expect there to be some coverage of that subject." (This applies to the main Christchurch article and its subrubs/areas, incl Southshore and Opawa) I noted that this content is typically covered in offline sources, Ngāi Tahu atlas is a decent directory for these sources (although the website itself is sometimes prone to inaccuracies).

I think some of the sources will be available online although some certainly would not (e.g Local Lives: A History of Addington or The Estuary Where Our Rivers Meet the Sea Christchurch's Avon-Heathcote Estuary and Brooklands Lagoon) and see WP:OFFLINE, "Don't let the fact that a printed book or journal is not available online scare you away from using them as a source in Wikipedia". I have been more cautious about my editing (e.g checking for typos) and fact-checking before I click on the "publish changes" button, you also don't need to cite info further in the article if it has already been cited. Most local history books are more reliable then some NZ mainstream media (which has a left-leaning political bias).

Regards. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

One approach, that I and others might well adopt, is simply to wipe away a whole section you have added rather than spend ages trying to sort it out. Wikipedia allowing anyone to edit does not mean anyone can do whatever they want to. There is also an obligation to edit to a reasonably competent encyclopedic standard. If you can't do that then do not edit. See my 'quantum mechanics' analogy above. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Plz stop this behavior. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 22:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I just had a quick read of the history of Opawa section and I think it looks alright.

Roger, as discussed previously, you appear to be alone in your belief that the history of Māori occupation and use of the land in the area of Christchurch is somehow irrelevant to the history of Christchurch.

Please do not ask other editors to stop editing when they are doing so in good faith. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 03:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I have never said the history of Maori in the area pre-1850 was irrelevant. What I have said is there was no Maori settlement on the site of the then Christchurch (today's inner city). Settlement and occupation are not synonymous and there was not even occupation beyond caves near Sumner or the odd fishing or eating spots along the coast or rivers. There certainly was no settlement. Somewhere like Kaiapoi and the pa is different because that was closer to a settlement, but Kaiapoi is not Christchurch. Also, Brighton and Redcliffs should not be treated as being in Christchurch - they were a long way out for decades after 1850 so treating them as part of Christchurch is anachronistic. Despite the whole SI being treated as unoccupied in the declaration of sovereignty, there was in fact acknowledgement of Maori who were there, as evidenced by actively getting them to sign the treaty in 1840-41 and by the various land purchases pre-1850. That is about as close a connection I can find between Maori and the European settlement of Canterbury in 1850. IMO, mention of Maori in this article should mention that and nothing else - a couple of sentences in the first paragraph). It certainly should not ramble on about Kaiapoi, eels or a NI iwi invasion of the SI. That all belongs in a separate article. Any ignorant observer reading that history of Christchurch section would be led to believe there was a Maori settlement pre-1850 that was taken over and developed by Europeans post-1850. That is a complete fallacy. It might not suit the current political mood but it is nevertheless true. Please look at the article source used to 'confirm' Maori settlement of the Christchurch land. The word 'settlement' is used about 20 times and always in relation to Maori settlement f New Zealand in the 14thC. or settlement (or lack of it) of the SI. The word is there correctly used in a very broad general sense, not about a specific settlement anywhere and certainly not on the Christchurch site.

Being done in good faith does not excuse the addition of text that causes so much later 'correction' - which could be seen as disruptive. As you saw earlier, even that IP on the Southshore article mentioned it. I asked the editor to stop adding large chunks of text that still needed a lot of work, and to type off line first. That is a perfectly acceptable request. I was of course aware the additions had been made in good faith which did not make my comments any easier to write. And, I don't think consensus means we can ignore verifiable facts. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

You're wrong about that there was no settlement in the inner (central) city. (e.g Puāri and Ōtautahi) near the fire station and Victoria Square.

Cathedral Square and a part of Kilmore Street were burial sites. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 22:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you supply a source/link? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

ok, (see map of Christchurch city center in this PDF) there are also book sources available in the library. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 22:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

[3] I found this too which is not at all ideal. CCC library stuff is primary. Your source is primary, it is one person's legal submission/evidence. From what I can see without wasting much time reading in depth, these places near the fire station were either abandoned, intermittently used and often nowhere near Christchurch. More relevant they are deemed sites of cultural significance (again, please read the sources carefully). A site of cultural significance is not a settlement. As I said earlier, settlement means something, certainly in international law, and these places were not settlements. At best they were places occupied by a few Maori at various times. I suggest you try to remove from your thinking anything you have heard or read about the importance of involving Maori as 'partners' in NZ society, especially from the CCC, and look at proper independent secondary sources. and read them carefully. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

It is still appropriate here, there are book sources available in Tūranga about Christchurch Māori. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 23:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by “CCC library stuff is primary.”? The link you provided has a list of sources at the bottom, which would make it secondary. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 05:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

This user has also been replacing New Zealand spellings with American ones, for example here, here and here.

Because this user does not like his English being corrected, I suggest that he write on a user page until he has copyedited them. I am sure many users are willing to help with this. After I fix his mistakes, editing articles relating to the Kapiti Coast and Paraparaumu, or leaving messages on my talk page is quite simply an odd response.

If this user has a medical condition that causes him to generate word salad for short periods of time (eg here, here), then I suggest that he try pausing his edits until it has finished affecting him, if he can notice when it is happening. ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@cloventt Information in WP is (hopefully) backed by sources. That doesn't make it a proper secondary source. Please note the need for Independent- reliable- secondary. The detail from libraries is self published, making it not independent. The libraries are council run meaning they are bound to promote Mauri language and culture (I am not saying that is right or wrong, just that it isn't properly independent). If a reputable author writes something for a library of te papa, such as Claudia Orange, we can use it because she is an established expert in the field, even though it has not been independently published - it is an exception where a primary source is allowed by WP. But most of what we see on library sites is not written by established well published experts. A huge amount of detail in WP is not backed by secondary sources. IMO more that half the detail referenced to newspapers is primary - opinion pieces or quoting someone's opinion. If these library pages of information are to be used, we should ideally go direct to the sources they use mentioned at the bottom of the page and use them as our secondary sources. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

'Lore and History of the South Island Maori' and 'Maori Place-names of Canterbury' books are reliable - and better than purely using online NZ sources for this content. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

STOP STOP

Continuing from but different to the above section. The Addington article was reasonably okay. There had been some gradual improvements over the last couple of years, but much of that has been undone by yet more edits by user:Alexeyevitch which all have to be undone changed or repaired. From recent discussions it appears that he is being encouraged and helped by experienced editors to get involved by working on Christchurch suburbs. It should now be clear that he doesn't have the ability to make improvements. This is an open access encyclopedia for anyone to view but it is not a Year 10 note book to fill up with draft notes and scribble, but that is what is happening. If you have access to Alexeyevitch and are encouraging his edits then please stop. Get him to write drafts and then go over them with him first - all off line. Also, please remember that although anyone can edit, not everyone is capable of editing. A certain level of ability is necessary and assumed. If he wants to get involved, that is good. I suggest you help him to make some automatic technical edits, like changing short descriptions to 'none'. Alexeyvitch, I've asked you to stop or slow down before but you don't, possibly encouraged by others to keep going. If you keep making these mass edits full of mistakes I, and hopefully others, will treat it as disruptive. I have no doubt you are acting in good faith, but remember that disruptive edits can still be made in good faith. This post is mainly directed at those who are helping you in the real world. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Several things:

1. This is not the appropriate place for discussing that article.
2. I have had a look at the article and it looks to have been generally improved by their edits. I have checked every one of their recent contributions there and it looks like they have contributed very productively to the article. I can’t see anything concerning enough to warrant this reaction from you.
3. If you have specific criticisms, list them on the relevant talk page. Otherwise your complaints are just “I don’t like it” with no way to respond to them. Constructive criticism please.
4. Your messages to this user are so critical and dismissive of their good faith editing that you are crossing the threshold of civility from my perspective.

David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 08:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with Cloventt - I am not sure why is this here? I don't want to get too invovled here but I need to make an important point.

1. It is discouraged to discourage other fellow editors to stop editing/editing topics of interest (or even Wikimedia projects in general)

2. Also this comment: "If you keep making these mass edits full of mistakes I, and hopefully others, will treat it as disruptive" I think this is bad-faith. I don't want to pressurize you but I think this comment was a bit harsh.

3. Everyone makes mistakes, learn from them. Don't make the same misakes again.

4. I don't want to be hubris on my part, but I recently realized of the importance of civility... this might be a good read for Roger. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 09:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

No, not being uncivil, so please do not go down that path. I have repeatedly told him to slow down and draft off line first but it is not happening, and it appears that others are encouraging him to do his practice runs online. This is in fact the best place to comment because my remarks are about Christchurch suburbs and it follows directly from the above post - Addington is just the latest example. Since the beginning of May, he has made about eleven edits of over 6,000 letters. All have been removed or changed, including a series of changes today made by user:Goldenbaybutcher. I replaced the lead which was fluff. So, no, his edits have not been an improvement, they have in fact caused others to spend time sorting them out. There is only so much someone can say 'tactfully' before having to be more direct. I regret that blunt talk upsets you so much but giving and taking direct criticism and suggestions that might appear curt to some is all part of Wikipedia editing. Open debate improves Wikipedia and should be encouraged. I assumed you knew that. Now, back to the point, which is not primarily about this editor: it is about others who, I assume, are encouraging him to by-pass the necessary off-line drafting or online use of his wp:sandbox, which is what its's for. Unfortunately, your edit above hasn't led me to change my view about that. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@Alexetevitch. I am not discouraging you from editing; I am encouraging you to learn how to edit properly by practising and drafting offline first. Your comment is a good example of what I mean - you do not understand what I have been saying and as a result you accuse me falsely of discouraging you. I then have to spend two minutes refuting your accusation, two minutes I could be spending elsewhere doing something else. If you still don't understand why my remarks are in fact trying to help you contribute then I cannot do much more I'm afraid. Here's another suggestion, that would be easier given to you in person in front of a screen: Draft a sentence or two offline. Then look at every single word to see if it supported by a source or is just something you have made up in your mind without realising it. So when you write (for example) "There are many notable buildings in Opawa", is that true? Many doesn't mean one or two, or even three or four, it means many. So, unless the source says there are many, or the source gives examples of at least seven or eight, then don't use the word many. Also consider that between a couple and many comes the word several, which would be better to use than half a dozen. There is a staggered line of adjectives to describe more than one: a couple, some, a few, half a dozen, several, many, very many, numerous, countless. They all change the meaning of a sentence in which they are used in different ways, so handle them with care. Best to use the word in the source and not make one up. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

A further point in answer to my disruptive remark - it isn't a matter of your making mistakes, which we all do. You are adding a sentence or two and then rearranging it or changing the odd word or adding a comma or moving it to another section. That is what should be done off line by working on an initial draft. You could then get someone else to check your final draft to suggest any further changes. By not doing that you are creating clutter and errors online that leads to frustration and wasted time by others. That is what I mean by being disruptive, not the occasional typo. I regret it if you feel these remarks are also an unwarranted criticism. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello, who would be the one willing to review such drafts for chch suburbs? if it's no one than this plan won't work. They should also provide suggestions to the prose.

There are 5 heritage-listed places in Opawa (St. Marks church does not appear to be a heritage-listed building, it is a prominent landmark in the suburb though.)

• 188 Richardson Terrace
• 44 Opawa Road
• 9 Ford Road
• 41 Opawa Road
• 22 Cholmondeley Avenue

I saw your edit summary on Woolston and I panicked for a bit because it was out of the blue. I thought the statement was to discourage/STOP me from editing chch articles. I was wrong... it also depends if there will be the "reviewer" for the drafts. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Having your edits changed is not a reason to stop editing. It is just part of the normal collaborative process of editing. Comparing the state of the article from last week to now, it has obviously improved. A key part of that improvement is this user jumping in and making edits. Please do not discourage editors from editing in good faith. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 12:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, Opawa's a big place, it's a suburb that stretches out without obvious boundaries and has different parts to it, rich and poor. You could also write a bit on Hanson park and the loop. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 12:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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	Notes
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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

City brand logo

Recently the city has gained an official city brand logo. [4]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)