Talk:Papakura District

message: :1. Well written? O.K.
:2. Factually accurate? Fail (citations missing)
:3. Broad in coverage? Fail (expansion requested)
:4. Neutral point of view? Pass
:5. Article stability? Pass
:6. Images? O. K.
Additional comments :
* The Geography section is a bit jam packed with proper names, route names, city names and all that jazz. If you would add more prose to it it would be more digestable, if I may say. Maybe more caracteristics about importance of such and such would be good.
* The line The city council is planning for Papakura's population to more than double within the next 50 years. is unnecessary unless changed to reflect the fact that there should be no time limitations in an article. Like By 2056, the council projects there will be twice as many people as there are now or something like that.
* This Papakura is somewhat isolated from the urban pressures and social problems associated with more urban parts of South Auckland. needs to be inline cited.
* Papakura boasts, should this be the verb used?
* A section such as Facilities gives an advertisement tone to the article. Especially with Outdoor Recreation where it shows areas that are not even in the district.
* This is unnecessary in the article : Commuters from Papakura to Auckland are affected by Auckland's acute traffic congestion problems.
* No section on the council, why? The hierarchy of the council should be included in the article.
* On , the area is 126 km2, 123.
* Hunua Ranges sounds like a big attraction but is barely mentioned in the article.
* More about demography can be found here.
* The History is more of an etymology section with a bit of everyday life of the Papakura villagers. It should contain more information on the settlement of this district.
* Images such as :Image:Papakuralogo.PNG & :Image:EdHillaryonNZfiver.jpg need to state their fair use rationale.
Please work on the comments and come back to the GA process once you have worked on the article. You can contact me on my talk page if you want more help, information or if you want to discuss the GA review. Good luck, Lincher 12:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the useful feedback. Much to consider ~~ Papeschr 21:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA failed

message: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.150.117.41 (talk • contribs) 
:I removed these sections from the article as unsourced and speculative. I'm not sure what the current status of the proposal is, and although Helen Clark met with the mayors initially, I don't know what her views on the plan are. To say that "many Aucklanders" support it is meaningless - you'd have to quote an opinion poll. This could go back into the article if it's properly referenced.-gadfium 22:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The version now added to the article is even worse. I'd like to see the claims referenced, and until they are referenced, I think the material should be removed from the article.-gadfium 07:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anybody think that this article should go on the page? 

message: I don't understand what this is saying. I assume that Newsteams is a typo for newstreams, but in that case just about everyone everywhere can be informed of breaking news and emergency messages. Does Papakura have some special mechanism in place to inform residents of an emergency. I believe most communities in New Zealand have civil defence sirens; not that most people would know what to do if they went off.-gadfium 01:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Breaking News

message: Well thank you MadMaxDog! You have a much better understanding than papschr, and especially much better ATTITUDE
:Does this mean you are going to start signing in?? Or signing your comments?? ~ Papeschr 00:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  THANKS 

message: Hello, Just wondering, Why is Nick Watson associated with Papakura? Do you know? --HannahSamuels 04:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just remove it if you doubt the connection. It doesn't have a source, and the user who added it has only made two edits.-gadfium 06:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicky Watson 

message: Could somebody please change the name of this article, from Papakura to Papakura District? This article refers to the actual district, not the suburb Papakura. I am planning to make an article: Papakura, about the suburb, not the district as a whole. Thanks.
--HannahSamuels 08:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support moving this article to Papakura District. That name is currently taken by a redirect which has more than edit in its history, so I believe this will require help from an admin. Unless someone objects in the next day or so (or beats me to it), I'll list it at Wikipedia:Requested moves. -- Avenue 11:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Papakura DISTRICT 

message: A 30 minute drive southeast of the Papakura District is the Hunua Ranges (in Franklin District). This Auckland Regional attraction features a waterfall and forested walking tracks. Since Papakura has no major river, just a stream, much of Auckland's water (including Papakura District’s) is supplied from reservoirs in the Hunua Ranges. does this information need to be in this article? Officially, Hunua is in the Franklin District not Papakura?? Could I please get some feedback? Chhers.
--HannahSamuels 08:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy for it to go. As you say, the Hunuas aren't in Papakura, even if they are nearby. Much the same argument would apply to visiting Mission Bay, Maraetai etc. -- Avenue 11:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hunua Ranges?? 

message: :Image:Papakuralogo.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Papakuralogo.PNG

message: :Image:EdHillaryonNZfiver.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
— Save_Us_229 01:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:EdHillaryonNZfiver.jpg

message: No thanks. If/when Papakura District is subsumed by a SuperCity, or renamed to something else, then we can rename this article and update the info accordingly. As it is, a separate Papakura article is duplication of effort. I vote for one Papakura article. Papakura is not a big place, it should just have 1 wiki page! Thanks ~ Ropata (talk) 06:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Papakura articles?! 

message: * The article Papakura District contains a lot of content that belongs in this article. 
* Also, the administrative history "Papakura District" should be footnoted in the History section of this page. 
* Also, a separate article that contains duplicate content dilutes the usefulness of this page. 
* Also, it's confusing having two articles on the same subject - the distinction between "suburb" or "district" is relatively trivial
Vote to MERGE Ropata (talk) 03:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose a merge. I agree that there is a lot of overlap, and that can eventually be resolved, by for example, shortening down the district article to the local government history, and removing the demographic and cultural stuff over to Papakura - but "Papakura District" is a separate historical topic, that does not always overlap well with Papakura alone. If we merge, another Wiki-historian will later on have to re-create the article about the District... Ingolfson (talk) 10:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Responding to Ropota's earlier comment about the size of Papakura - size of place is not important on Wikipedia re: number of articles. We have articles about single buildings, after all. What Ropota seems concerned about is duplication of effort/confusion. I think that is best covered by, as I suggested above, cutting down the "Papakura District" article to the local government functions / history (creation, major achievements & governmental events, subsumation into Auckland Council under protest). That makes a tidy scope for a separate article. Ingolfson (talk) 10:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Support a merge, of the historical local government information into our list of former territorial authorities in New Zealand, and of the demographic, cultural, and other information about the area itself into Papakura. I would delete the information about the four former wards; it's unsourced and unimportant. Besides this, there is no information here specifically about Papakura District that does not apply equally to other Districts. If someone does arrive later with sourced information about events and achievements of Papakura District, the article could be recreated then. Yes, there is plenty to say about the reorganisations of local government in NZ, but this would be better handled in a couple of general articles than repeated in dozens of separate short articles on the various former local authorities involved. --Avenue (talk) 13:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion