Talk:Milford Track
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
'Kiwi' Term too colloquial?
[edit]Use of the term 'Kiwi' referring to New Zealand Citizens is perhaps a little colloquial?
Suggest either WikiLinking to 'Kiwi(person)' or replacing with 'New Zealand Citizen' (or similar) Any suggestions?
I agree that "Kiwi" might be a little colloquial. (It was me that originally authored that little bit.) I'm not a native of New Zealand and have only been there for about three weeks, but I have never heard any terms for a native other than "Kiwi" and "New Zealander." Perhaps "New Zealander" would have a better connotation? I'm not sure it's necessary to say "New Zealand Citizen." Perhaps a New Zealand native would offer some advice? Pwilt328 22:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes we love the term 'kiwi' but I'm unsure also about it being understood clearly as meaning a person from New Zealand. I believe New Zealander is perfectly ok to use. If the 'kiwi' is used in inverted commas that could signal a special use of the term, but I think Kiwi(person) is a bit technical for the typical reader of an article. If kiwi or Kiwi is disambiguated then I see no issues at all in its use.moza 12:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- I would prefer just the phrasing "New Zealand poet". Remy B 12:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes we love the term 'kiwi' but I'm unsure also about it being understood clearly as meaning a person from New Zealand. I believe New Zealander is perfectly ok to use. If the 'kiwi' is used in inverted commas that could signal a special use of the term, but I think Kiwi(person) is a bit technical for the typical reader of an article. If kiwi or Kiwi is disambiguated then I see no issues at all in its use.moza 12:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
To Do list
[edit]- Elaboration on route of track.
- Points of interest along the track.
- DOC huts along track (both 'independant' and 'guided') by the way the guided huts are not DOC owned.
- Some more pictures eg on a great day the view from the pass out to the sea
- I plan on contributing sometime, when I get my images out of storage, it truly is an awesome walk.moza 12:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree on all the to do's except for more pictures. I know it is a great walk but this is an encyclopedia, not a coffee table book. I've been looking at a bunch of other tracks and hiking trail articles, and most have one picture - that should be enough to whet the appetite and look at external links. I could suggest uploading your images to flickr or similar service and putting a link from your user page. If you have great ones, by all means upload to the commons. RosinDebow 20:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think its ok to be 'text centric' or 'image centric' thats the rich texture of humanity.. but I'm unlikely to push for more pics, I'll just take them and give them as I see fit. Likewise I will probably continue to be mining more text data and bringing here, including my life collections of such information. The reality is that both centre-ings have their pros and cons; try and describe the Milford Track certificate in words, or the view to the airport from the highest point. Try andd describe the shape of the glacier cut valleys. Its all possible but a pic is worth a thousand words sometimes. A side track takes walkers to the highest waterfall in New Zealand. After 3 days of walking the prospect of climbing back up a 1000ft rough track for 2 hours return, is daunting. I think the view at the end of that diversion is worth a place in an encyclopedic article. Ancient trees with moss could be another unique feature, as could the colour of th ewater in the rivers, impossible to describe adequately in text. having said all that though, what is the ACTUAL rationale for reducing pic content?moza 11:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- To clarify, I did not propose reducing the pic content, I stated what the norm is on Wikipedia and proposed not adding any more. Since I'm a new editor, when I am creating a new article I survey other similar articles for content and style. The main reason is to be consistent. Since I have not found any guidelines on appropriate use of images in hiking trail articles, I defer to common practice and community consensus building through forums like this. I agree with you that pictures are worth 1000 words - however, it is important that they support the text - also consider the needs of visually impaired people who can only read the text. The image/text balance might be a good issue to raise with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Hiking_Trails. RosinDebow 15:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- ok but why is the norm the norm? it might not be consensus, it may be simply that there havent been enough pics in the past. I dont know, but consensus is a variable thing too, just like there may be more pics on music festivals compared with hiking trails, there are likely more pics on articles built by photographers compared with articles built by librarians. My observation is that its quite variable, and is related to the article and the sub-group of editors involved. Perhaps the typical accepted balance could be found in the featured articles? Recently The Catlins was feature article of the day, and its not far from the Milford Track, and it does have nice pics. Whatever, I looked at my library last night, and my pics really arent good enough overall, there are 2 very good ones, but the rest will do until someone delivers better. There is a process called peer review that can be used to streamline articles AFTER they are built up to featured article candidate, and that will help us understand the consensus around this one. Now for a reality check: Todays featured article James II of England has 7 info boxes and 3 images, yesterday's featured article Michigan State University has an info box and 21 images, the day before Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport has 9 images and 5 charts, the day before that Henry James has 7 images. The Catlins has 8 pics and an info box with map. see Wikipedia:What is a featured article?.moza 22:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think its ok to be 'text centric' or 'image centric' thats the rich texture of humanity.. but I'm unlikely to push for more pics, I'll just take them and give them as I see fit. Likewise I will probably continue to be mining more text data and bringing here, including my life collections of such information. The reality is that both centre-ings have their pros and cons; try and describe the Milford Track certificate in words, or the view to the airport from the highest point. Try andd describe the shape of the glacier cut valleys. Its all possible but a pic is worth a thousand words sometimes. A side track takes walkers to the highest waterfall in New Zealand. After 3 days of walking the prospect of climbing back up a 1000ft rough track for 2 hours return, is daunting. I think the view at the end of that diversion is worth a place in an encyclopedic article. Ancient trees with moss could be another unique feature, as could the colour of th ewater in the rivers, impossible to describe adequately in text. having said all that though, what is the ACTUAL rationale for reducing pic content?moza 11:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree on all the to do's except for more pictures. I know it is a great walk but this is an encyclopedia, not a coffee table book. I've been looking at a bunch of other tracks and hiking trail articles, and most have one picture - that should be enough to whet the appetite and look at external links. I could suggest uploading your images to flickr or similar service and putting a link from your user page. If you have great ones, by all means upload to the commons. RosinDebow 20:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- "Since Wikipedia is not divided into a macropaedia, micropaedia, and concise versions like Encyclopaedia Britannica is, we must serve all three user types in the same encyclopedia. Summary style is based on the premise that information about a topic should not all be contained in a single article since different readers have different needs;
* many readers need just a quick summary of the topic's most important points (lead section), * others need a moderate amount of info on the topic's more important points (a set of multi-paragraph sections), and * some readers need a lot of detail on one or more aspects of the topic (links to full-sized separate articles).
We must serve all groups." .
- From that brief survey of the current state of affairs, I think that there is room to move attitudes in this area, and I dont think that the quantity of pics on its own is relevant, its how the pics and text are used together that counts.moza 22:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- how the pics and text are used together that counts - I agree. I reviewed the peer review process for featured article candidates, but suggest that consensus building on article content can and should happen before that stage. In any case, I didn't mean to discourage, and hope that you will start contributing to the article! RosinDebow 03:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Guided walk ads
[edit]I have removed the in-text links to an external company providing guided walks on the Milford track. It was written as if promoting the company - Refer to WP:NOT#SOAP (Point 3). I have however added that particular link to the External Links section. Goldfinger820 00:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Helicopters
[edit]I'm half tempted to add an observation that the great experience is blighted by the continual buzzing of helicopters and light planes up and down the valley on the last day of the walk. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10412322 Greglocock 22:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)