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, 4: 3 months

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

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
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 (56 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	13,370	13,370
Toponymy	5,949	5,949
History	277	57,784
Waitaha Māori settlement	9,059	9,059
European settlement	8,566	8,566
Provincial growth	14,668	14,668
Modern history	9,797	9,797
2010–11 earthquakes	6,398	6,398
Port Hills fires	1,707	1,707
2019 mosque shootings	7,312	7,312
Geography	135	30,706
Location	1,017	1,017
Geology	1,890	1,890
Aquifer and spring-fed streams	3,510	3,510
Central City	5,027	5,027
Suburbs	2,283	2,283
Satellite towns	1,219	1,219
Climate	15,625	15,625
Demographics	24,820	31,475
Culture and identity	2,220	2,220
Urban area	4,435	4,435
Economy	70	18,130
Economic profile in 2023	3,493	3,493
Industry	3,888	3,888
Services for agriculture	5,130	5,130
Tourism	2,227	2,227
Gateway to the Antarctic	3,322	3,322
Government	15	5,751
Local government	2,910	2,910
Central government	2,826	2,826
Culture and entertainment	1,142	37,463
Cinema	4,234	4,234
Parks and nature	7,891	7,891
Theatre	6,762	6,762
Music	6,193	6,193
Venues	9,857	9,857
Festivals	1,384	1,384
Sport	5,132	5,132
Education	186	1,794
Secondary schools	1,313	1,313
Tertiary institutions	295	295
Transport	15,530	15,530
Utilities	15	14,443
Water supply	2,754	2,754
Wastewater	5,293	5,293
Electricity	2,973	2,973
Telecommunications	3,408	3,408
Media	3,362	3,362
Notable people	65	65
Sister cities	1,051	1,051
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	245,460	245,460

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
Archive 4

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

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]

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?

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

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]

Metropolitan population

I was asked if I could provide figures for a metropolitan population for Christchurch in an edit summary by User:Schwede66 today. There is such a figure in the infobox, which was added by User:Lcmortensen on 17 June 2023, with an extra note added on 2 April 2024. The figure is for Christchurch urban area and 12 satellite towns, including Kaiapoi and Rangiora, plus a hard-coded figure for the "Extrapolated FUA [functional urban area] population from the 2018 census; 40,311 is the rural population within the FUA". I'm not sure exactly where this hard-coded figure comes from; I might be able to work it out, but Lcmortensen is probably the appropriate person to update this to the 2023 census. The 2023 statistics I work with do not include the FUA, and the various territorial authorities, SA3, SA2, and SA1 areas do not map to it, ie some of the FUA boundaries cut through SA1 blocks.-Gadfium (talk) 01:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A minor correction; it appears the 2018 and 2022 SA1 boundaries do match the FUA boundaries. The 2023 ones don't in the Ashley Forest area.-Gadfium (talk) 01:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate you looking into it. That's fabulous – thank you. Schwede 66 02:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]