Talk:Queenstown, New Zealand

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NZ census stats warning[edit]

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)

Photo[edit]

The main photo - that of the queenstown - is underwhelming and completely inappropriate for Queenstown —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nevennett (talk • contribs) 10:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Changing demographics[edit]

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)[reply]

External Links[edit]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

some issues[edit]

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)[reply]

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

QUEENSTOWN[edit]

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)[reply]

ADDITIONS[edit]

added nathaneal chalmers - but need to add maori history including maori jack etc. need to add pages for cecil peak, walter peak and queenstown hill. --Grapeman4 (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Queenstown, 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 22:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 February 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus that Queenstown, New Zealand is the primary topic for "Queenstown," and thus no consensus to move the pages at this time. Dekimasuよ! 00:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– The resort town in New Zealand is the clear WP:PTOPIC for "Queenstown", considering page views, Google Search results, and Google Books results. feminist (talk) 13:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Queenstown, Eastern Cape, which is a lot larger than the NZ town, is also pretty significant, as is Cobh, which was known as Queenstown for much of its history. No primary topic here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think the page views are heavily skewed due it being a major tourist destination. I just have trouble counting that as being an encyclopedic reason to put it above the other uses, especially when at least two of the other cities are so much higher population (Queenstown, Singapore - 98k, Queenstown, Eastern Cape - 68k). Its very close, but just not clear enough for me to call it the primary topic. -- Netoholic @ 20:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looking once more how primary topic is defined, the concepts of usage and long-term significance are discussed. It then says that "in most cases, the topic that is primary with respect to usage is also primary with respect to long-term significance", and I would suggest that applies here. If you concur, the following is thus relevant (emphasis as per the original): "A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage 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." When I look at the referenced page view stats, that meets that definition spot-on. Who cares whether other places have a higher population? This is Wikipedia, we are writing this encyclopaedia for our readers, and they primarily look for the Queenstown that is known as New Zealand's adventure capital. And if that's what readers are interested in, how can that be called "skewed"? I'd suggest that's what we call — primary topic! Schwede66 09:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I would say that the historic Irish town is far more important with regards to long-term significance, even though it is no longer known as Queenstown. New Zealanders obviously assume their town is notable, and that's entirely understandable, but I would respectfully suggest that most people outside New Zealand have never even heard of it. It is neither a major city nor does it have historical significance. I repeat, there is no primary topic here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would respectfully suggest that most people outside UK/Ireland have never even heard of the town in Ireland. Queenstown Airport shows that Queenstown NZ has a significant number of visitors from outside New Zealand. feminist (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • The point is that the NZ town is being proposed as a primary topic. The town in Ireland is not (and I'm not suggesting it should be)! Neither is a primary topic. Nor are any of the others. And what on earth is the relevance of Queenstown having "a significant number of visitors from outside New Zealand"? That's not a criterion for being primary topic. I'm sure the other Queenstowns have foreign visitors too. Completely irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT instead per nom. CookieMonster755✉ 18:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose given there are eight articles listed under Queenstown and no real reason why the New Zealand article should be given more weight above the other seven. Ajf773 (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Search interest, check. Prevalence in books, check. Page views, check. No real reason indeed. feminist (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC based on page views, it's no contest. --В²C ☎ 22:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per both Primary criteria. Queenstown, Eastern Cape, is larger than the NZ town, and certainly this one Queenstown is not more significant than all others combined. If anything the Irish one predominates in Gbooks. And should be factored into pageviews If the dab must be moved, which oppose, then at the absolute most a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, so that "New Zealand" is still visible on drop down menu and Google results. Removing "New Zealand" serves no one in this case. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above rationales of Netoholic, IIO. ╠╣uw [talk] 14:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 13 March 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Calidum 16:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


– Three years ago, we discussed this move request and it closed as "no consensus". The arguments for the move remain the same. One of the arguments brought up against the move was that "page views are heavily skewed due it being a major tourist destination". Undoubtedly, that is true, but that in itself would be an argument for the move in my mind. Queenstown markets itself as the "Adventure capital of the world" and they produce videos to show that it's not just an empty slogan. I was in that place earlier this week (for a conference) and I sat through a presentation by their tourism manager. He threw a lot of statistics around, including that 70% of their tourists are (or rather were) international arrivals (with them spending something like 85% of what goes through the local tills). It's now exactly one year that New Zealand's borders have been closed and Queenstown feels dead; it's still extremely pretty but the country's small population cannot possibly compensate for the lack of international arrivals. So, have page view numbers dropped accordingly now that international arrivals aren't in the mix any longer? Well, of the many places that are currently called Queenstown (including Queenstown, Eastern Cape, which officially has the name Komani; and Queenstown, Ireland, which has been known as Cobh for the last century), the New Zealand place gets two-thirds of the page views during the COVID period. If the international tourists aren't coming and it's still tops in the page views, it suggests that it is the primary topic. With regards to Queenstown, Eastern Cape being much bigger, that's pretty much irrelevant when you look at it getting something like 5% of the New Zealand town's views. Cobh in Ireland hasn't been known as Queenstown for just over 100 years now. Queenstown, Singapore is also much bigger, but also 100 years younger than the New Zealand place.

Link to page views. Schwede66 19:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry for maybe being a bit dense but I can't follow your thinking. If we make the article with by far the highest readership the base article, how does that not serve the reader? Isn't that the exact point of defining a primary topic; maximising the chances of a reader getting to their desired article first time round? Could you maybe elaborate as I might not be the only editor who won't understand what you mean? Schwede66 01:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per iio. Disambiguation is still better than moving toward more ambiguity. Dicklyon (talk) 07:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I don't see any significant change to the arguments from 3 years ago. In fact, the long-term page views show the NZ article is on a declining trend since the last RM, so the difference between the topics is even narrower than it was before. -- Netoholic @ 07:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. WP:PTOPICs invariably collect bad links which mislead readers and degrade the encyclopedia. Narky Blert (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as there's no primary topic with respect to usage. According to the the clickstream data for November, Queenstown, New Zealand is indeed the most sought after link on the dab page as it received 142 clicks over that period, but that's still lower than the sum of the next five: Cobh (54), Komani (41), Queenstown, Alberta (24), Blackpool (17) and Queenstown, Tasmania (14). – Uanfala (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose per the views provided this only gets slightly more than the other combined titled "Queenstown" and would only go down if we took into account others such as the Irish one formerly called this. While Queenstown, Singapore is a part of a larger city it does have a larger population than the NZ one. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I reiterate what I said last time. Long-term significance is important. Queenstown, Eastern Cape, which is a lot larger than the NZ town, is also pretty significant, as is Cobh, which was known as Queenstown for much of its history. No primary topic here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question are their examples of small cities with the same name, where one doesn't have the country/state included? Large, prominent cities like Paris and Cairo don't use a country/state unlike Paris, Texas and Cairo, Illinois, while cities like Memphis, Tennessee and Memphis, Egypt each have the country/state attached. But are there examples like the Queenstown, New Zealand proposal? Fredlesaltique (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Queenstown,_New_Zealand&oldid=1212208972"