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
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
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".
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.
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]
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]
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]
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]
I'm sure the stats will be able to provide a more accurate view, but in the interim I did a cursory look the other day and came across this from Te Whatu Ora that may be useful. It includes the line In 2019, the greater Christchurch usually-resident population was estimated to be 516,800, and by 2038 it is projected to reach 621,600. and a few other stats that could be helpful. I can't seem to find what they identify as greater Christchurch, though. Turnagra (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]