Talk:Gisborne, New Zealand

New Zealand Mid‑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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 articles

Copyvio?[edit]

i removed parts that were copied directly from [1]. please put everything in your own words. Kingturtle 23:50 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

Tourist-brochure like[edit]

I tried to make it less tourist-brochure like. Try to maintain a NPOV! Grutness 00:23, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Climate[edit]

The climate section is pretty poor. Gisborne never has "tropical" weather. Potentially sub-tropical, but even that is questionable (sub-tropical implies mean temperature 22C in the warmest month by Koeppen definition. Gisborne has more like 20C mean temperature). As for the nonsense about recording temperatures higher in the "heart of the city", this can be applied to every city in the entire world. It's irrelevant to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.154.145.33 (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Kaiti and can happily grow a banana tree among other fruit. And I would consider Gisborne to be a sub-tropical city. Just a thought ~ Mojosa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.75.125.203 (talk) 23:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comma in article name[edit]

This page has a comma (,) in its title and URL. Is this appropriate, correct, and/or good-practice? 121.74.18.96 (talk) 00:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes and yes. Refer to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(New_Zealand). dramatic (talk) 09:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Primary topic[edit]

I'd like to suggest that this New Zealand city is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I've looked at page view stats:

Article title	Dec 2015 views	percentage
Gisborne (surname)	55	1%
Gisborne District	485	9%
Gisborne Region (redirect)	551	10%
Gisborne, New Zealand	3521	64%
Gisborne (New Zealand electorate)	97	2%
Gisborne, Victoria	739	13%
Electoral district of Gisborne	75	1%
total	5523

The New Zealand city's district, region (a redirect!) and the Victorian town all sit at around 10% of views, whilst the New Zealand city gets close to two thirds of the views. Comments welcome. I'll leave a note on the Victorian town's talk page so that page watchers can chip in. If this suggestion gets (near) unanimous support, let's move articles accordingly. If there's some dissent or not more than four comments in total, we can turn this into a formal move request. If it's clearly unsupported, we can leave things as they are. Schwede 66 20:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is clearly a need for a disambiguation page, but you do not say what it would be called. Currently it is Gisborne. Therefore at least for now, I do not support this proposal. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bduke I didn't state that because there is a naming convention for it; the dab page would be moved to Gisborne (disambiguation). Schwede 66 21:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the naming convention, but I do not agree. Who searches for "Gisborne (disambiguation)"? Leave it as it is. If you look for "Gisborne", you easily fined the disambiguation page, and then you see the two places. It has been that way for a long time.--Bduke (Discussion) 22:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bduke - have you got policy-based objections? Are you saying that you disagree with the concept of primary topic? Schwede 66 22:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is certainly no Broad-concept article, which fixes many of these problems. The concept of primary topic is part of a guideline which says in its header - "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". The common sense broad issue is that the term "Gisborne" is used for several places and concepts and I think it should remain that way. I do not think you are giving sufficient reason for a change. Let us see what others think. This is my last word for now. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on "I do not think you are giving sufficient reason for a change", maybe it's not entirely clear why I provided the page view stats. So to clarify, as far as I know page view stats is a common way of determining primary topics. This refers to that part of the relevant guideline where it says that a topic is primary "if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term". The stats show that it is 'more likely than all the other topics combined' (64% versus 36%), but I'm not clear whether 64% versus 13% sufficiently meets the 'much more likely than any other topic' definition. How much more does it have to be to be 'much more'? What I failed to include in the above table are views for the dab page (apologies), and we had 229 of those views. That is, of course, where Bduke's argument breaks down, as arriving at the dab page always requires a further click; it was a magnitude more likely that a reader was looking for the New Zealand city (at 3521 views that month). And that is the rationale behind primary topic, of course - make it more likely that a reader gets to their desired topic with their first attempt. If the New Zealand city isn't the desired article, then a hatnote links to be relevant dab page (and not the other way round). Also, the notion that primary topic is something that is only used for broad concept articles and by implication cities are not included is incorrect; see for example Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin - these are four of New Zealand's seven largest cities that share their name with other places around the world, and they are all considered the primary topic. And I shall state that I respect Bduke's wishes; there's no expectation from my end that he provides further input on the matter. Schwede 66 01:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gisborne, New Zealand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160213015502/http://www2.stats.govt.nz/domino/external/pasfull/pasfull.nsf/7cf46ae26dcb6800cc256a62000a2248/4c2567ef00247c6acc256aff00093231?OpenDocument to http://www2.stats.govt.nz/domino/external/pasfull/pasfull.nsf/7cf46ae26dcb6800cc256a62000a2248/4c2567ef00247c6acc256aff00093231?OpenDocument

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Māori name – verification needed[edit]

The article says the Māori name is Tūranga-nui-a-Kiwa but no citation is provided. The Māori name for Poverty Bay (the embayment) is Tūranganui-a-Kiwa. The Māori name for Gisborne was formerly Turanga (which would now be written Tūranga). There are sources that say Tūranganui-a-Kiwa is the name for the "Gisborne area" (which seems to mean the Poverty Bay district, not the city). Is there a reliable source for what the Māori name of the city is? Nurg (talk) 03:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nurg: I had a go at this. Better sources may well be available. Tairāwhiti re-appears in the culture section, which makes sense. Ben Mac Dui 09:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having a go at that. However, Tairāwhiti is a name for the region, not the city, & the source does not say it was for the city. So, I have made a further change. The article is now better as a result of our combined efforts, so thanks again. Nurg (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]