This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wellington 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. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days

This   level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

New Zealand Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Cities: National capitals 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 This article is supported by the project's national capital taskforce.

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.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: 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".

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2

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

With currently five paragraphs, the lead is too long. Whilst some of the paragraphs may be joined, the bigger problem is that the lead contains material that is not present in the body of the article. Those items should be moved out of the lead. This includes:

• Musket Wars
• form originally designed by Captain William Mein Smith
• Wellington's economy is primarily service-based, with an emphasis on finance, business services, government, and the film industry. It is the centre of New Zealand's film and special effects industries, and increasingly a hub for information technology and innovation, with two public research universities.
• the country's second-busiest airport
• Often referred to as New Zealand's cultural capital, the culture of Wellington is a diverse and often youth-driven one which has wielded influence across Oceania
• One of the world's most liveable cities, the 2021 Global Livability Ranking tied Wellington with Tokyo as fourth in the world
• From 2017 to 2018, Deutsche Bank ranked it first in the world for both livability and non-pollution
• Cultural precincts such as Cuba Street and Newtown are renowned for creative innovation, "op shops", historic character, and food – this isn't explicitly stated in the article body
• Wellington is a leading financial centre in the Asia-Pacific region, being ranked 35th in the world by the Global Financial Centres Index for 2021
• The global city has grown from a bustling Māori settlement
• The global city has grown from a bustling Māori settlement, to a colonial outpost, and from there to an Australasian capital that has experienced a "remarkable creative resurgence"

Aubernas has just removed the "Lead too long" tag with the rationale that there isn't a talk page discussion. So here's the talk page discussion as requested and I have reverted the tag removal. Also of relevance is that I have warned this user on several occasions to not start adding content to article leads that isn't in the article itself. This has happened so many times that it can be considered disruptive behaviour. To therefore remove this tag is also straying into the disruptive behaviour territory. If I were to check who bloated up the current lead, I wonder what I would find? Schwede 66 01:32, 3 December 2022 (UTC) reply

I removed the tag with a reason- this discussion was non existent. You have decided that was unnecessary, but believe me, I wouldn’t just delete it without a rationale; I believed enough time had surpassed without discussion to remove it. You initiating a discussion now also doesn’t mean it’s ongoing- we are only now talking about the use of the tag. You have made a good point that the lede is overlong, and I respect that. As for adding content to the lead without it being in the body, I stopped doing that months ago and genuinely understand that it was an error to have ever done so. Also, my last edit to the lead was a few months ago to remove the “coolest little capital of the world” quote, which I discussed on the Talk page first as being too touristy and outdated. Nobody responded so I removed it (and there was no objection raised), but I can’t see how that was disruptive. Aubernas ( talk) 08:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC) reply

I have done a brief search for sources that might back up the claim that the highest temperature recorded in Wellington is 31.1 C (as stated in the article), and that the date was 20 February 1896. The temperature record is stated on the Metservice website, but without a date. [1] So far, I have found this quote from the Dominion of 30 December 1930: "The hottest day in Wellington was recorded 35 years ago on February 28, when the temperature rose to 88 degrees". [2]. I will keep looking for other confirmation of the date, but the figure of 88 degrees F does support the 31.1 degrees C record. Marshelec ( talk) 19:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC) reply

That's all good, except that with 88 being a whole number made up of only two digits, it would be inappropriate to give the converted, Celsius figure in a more precise form. It should be simply 31 C. HiLo48 ( talk) 23:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC) reply

This source, published in 1896, states that the 88 degree record was set in February 1895 (not 1896). [3]. I will keep looking. Marshelec ( talk) 08:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Sunburn

The UV index of 11 seems a bit hard to believe for a site at 41°S. — Soap — 18:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The forecast max UV index for today in Wellington is said to be just under 10 by the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, see: [4], so a daily peak value of 11 in December and January is clearly credible. My guess is that the data in the table represents the typical daily maximum throughout a month, but the label just says "average" without qualifying what is meant. If I can manage to extract data from the cited database to confirm the numbers, I may change the label to "Peak", or "Daily peak". At midday on a clear day in Wellington during summer, you can definitely get badly sunburned in only a short time without use of sun protection. Marshelec ( talk) 01:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The article probably needs an update to include these other modes. There's big plans for improved cycle infrastructure, and cycle trip counts are rapidly increasing. I've just randomly read the article on Milwaukee and figured that might be a good template. Thoughts? 2401:7000:DAD7:2900:B879:EA9F:2030:CAD6 ( talk) 16:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Go for it. The most important aspect is that any additions are supported by reliable sources. Schwede 66 17:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply

This edit [5] introduced content about Malaysian influence in Wellington. The difficulty I have with this is that as it stands, it creates an unbalanced impression. The influence of people from other cultural backgrounds is not currently mentioned, yet there is great cultural diversity in the city. The demographic data already in the article in the Culture and identity section indicates that the top 5 countries of origin of overseas-born people in Wellington are UK, India, China, Australia and Philipines (in that order). There is no data at present about the proportion of people in Wellington who would claim Malaysian ethnicity. There are certainly many Malaysian restaurants, (and this is supported by the sources quoted). However, the article now seems unbalanced. The options appear to be: (a) seek reliable sources that describe cultural diversity in Wellington, and broaden the coverage - perhaps including sub-headings (b) remove the specific content about Malaysian influence. Marshelec ( talk) 00:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC) reply

I have just noticed that the table giving countries of origin of overseas-born people in Wellington does not appear to match the latest 2018 data I have found at this StatsNZ webpage: [6]. I will investigate further and will amend the table if required to align with this source. However, this does not change my view about the balance issues introduced by the recent edit. Marshelec ( talk) 01:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC) reply

I agree with this. I think it could do a bit of information about cultural influence from immigrants, but specifically about Malaysians is a bit overly detailed. Further, "prominent" is a bit of puffery and I think that it should really show not tell by stating the facts. — Panamitsu (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC) reply

I agree the addition is disproportionate. The mention of Malaysian restaurants could be balanced with mention of other cultures, or could be removed. The mention of a Malaysian Students Organisation at Vic is not appropriate as the university, while important to the city, is not representative of it, and the mention of sun bears at the zoo has no bearing on Malaysian culture in the city.- gadfium 02:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I have removed the recently added content. Marshelec ( talk) 05:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC) reply

The climate section now has a table for Wellington, a table for Pararaparaumu, a table for Wellington airport, and a graph illustrating long term trends. I think this is excessive and that only the table for Kelburn (in Wellington) is necessary. The additional data has added in good faith, but it now seems unbalanced. The Wellington airport climate table could be moved to Wellington Airport, and the Paraparaumu climate table could be moved to Kapiti Coast - noting that neither of these articles have a climate section at present. If there are no contrary views, I will relocate this content in a few days time. Marshelec ( talk) 05:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply