Talk:Queenstown, New Zealand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Queenstown, New Zealand article.
Article policies
Flag Queenstown, New Zealand is part of WikiProject New Zealand, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] NZ census stats warning

A note to anyone using New Zealand Census statistics - view the maps on their website to confirm the area you are taking the population of.

In the last edit to this article, the anon contributor simply grabbed the population of the entire Queenstown/Lakes district, which includes extensive rural areas and the towns of Wanaka, Arrowtown, Glenorchy and Hawea Flat. My previous (and now reinstated) figure was based on summing the five community zones which make up the Queenstown urban area. dramatic 05:28, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Photo

That photo is pretty good (the pararama). Try and get it featured.[User:Anon]

I would like to add this panoramic photo to the article. Willuknight 02:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changing demographics

No mention of how the demographics of the city have changed in recent years...? I only know this through hearsay. Perhaps someone with access to references can confirm the dramatic change in demographics here. — Донама 10:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

Previously unaware of Wiki T&C's, specifically "conflict of interest", I now turn to this option as recomended at the given link:

If you feel it necessary to make changes to Wikipedia articles, despite a real or perceived conflict of interest, we strongly encourage you to submit content for community review on the article's talk page, and to let one or more trusted community members judge whether the material belongs in Wikipedia.

The explanation for the removal of our and other peoples link was this:

(rm travel and promotional sites. Wikipedia is not a web directory, and you should not add your own sites here. I've added a link to DMOZ instead.)

Where does it stipulate what links that can and can't be added? The reason I ask is that the reasoning given for the removal of our and other links, isn't consistent. EG:

But still things don't quite add up. Here's another example:

Why does wikipedia.org/wiki/Napier have Hawke's Bay Tourism, the official Napier Tourism site, yet wikipedia.org/wiki/Queenstown has Destination Queenstown removed, and that site in particular being the councils official tourism arm?

Conflict of interest is a fair point, but I also added in other links, not just my own, eg:

So, I'd like to use this Discussion feature as recomended to be pointed in the right direction. In my opinion, the reason for the removal of my own link can be seen as a conflict of interest, but not when I add the other links. Also, the links were removed because of their nature, yet many other comparable Wiki's have similiar, if not further 'off-topic' links.

As I see it, DMOZ is the most appropriate place to add all these sites, and then Wikipedia can have a single link to the DMOZ category. I don't want to have this article linking to dozens or hundreds of websites, but I also don't want to have to make decisions on which are the best. The DMOZ category linked to currently has 8 websites in the top Queenstown category, and a total of 271 including subcategories.-gadfium 20:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I added this link: http://www.boston.com/travel/articles/2004/11/07/new_zealand_at_a_crossroads?pg=full. I feel it provides balance to the Queenstown article which is travel brochure perfect (advertisment?). The topic is over development. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yonk (talk • contribs) 08:00, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

You added the link in the references section. Since you had made no other edits to the article, I removed it with the question "for which part of the article is this a reference?".
You could certainly add a paragraph to the article on the problems which development has brought. I think you should find a more authoritative criticism to reference it though. There's nothing wrong with the Boston Globe as a source, but this article is a travel piece, and the mention of Queenstown is not even on the first page. I doubt you will have much trouble finding a better discussion.-gadfium 09:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gadfium (talk • contribs) 09:00, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

[edit] some issues

Queenstown is a pretty big place and one of the centers for backpackers and travellers in NZ. I think the article needs padding out. For example, AJ Hackett (the founder of commercial bungee jumping) and the various bungee sites are not mentioned, nor are other attractions such as ski facilities and the ice bar mentioned. Queenstown is one of the activiy centres of Nz (and thats saying something) and I think this should be included in the article. Chr1sday87 00:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. Add it in yourself. Nomadtales 06:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] QUEENSTOWN

there is no information on Queenstown thats why school are having troble finding information.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.119.241 (talk) 08:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)