Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject Cities (Rated C-class)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject New Zealand / Māori  (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Māori task force (marked as Mid-importance).


It seems rather confusing to give the population of the urban area as 358,000, then give the population of the administrative district, but further down the page have the line "The population is expected to grow to 358,000 by the year 2021". Which population? - And I'd like to see the basis of the first 'Urban Area' figure. If that is based on the Regional Council area it is clearly wrong. The 316,000 figure agrees with the census, and their measurement area includes Prebbleton, Templeton and Kaiapoi, but Excludes Lyttelton and the Harbour bays area. This seems pretty close to the entire urban area to me. dramatic 23:23, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The urban area population is based on the Statistics New Zealand definition of the Christchurch Urban Area. Statistics New Zealand defines boundaries for all urbanised areas in New Zealand with more than 1000 people. I'd like to go through and cite all those figures but I need to figure out a way of doing it that doesn't take up too much space. Ben Arnold 03:05, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
But that is where the 316224 figure comes from : [1] - which if you check the map covers all significant urban areas which might be classed as Christchurch. I see that both figures in the table have now been inflated (if these are 2004 estimates, then that should be noted), making the phrase about population being projected to grow (shrink) to 358000 in 16 years even more contradictory. Note that most Wikipedia articles on NZ towns and cities show only census figures, not current estimates (which need updating too often). dramatic 09:48, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yeah you're right they're 2004 figures. I updated them yesterday from the 2003 figures. I agree the year should be noted as well as citing SNZ. I think there needs to be a concise way to do it though, and I haven't figured out what that is. As for how regularly we update the statistics, I am happy to update the population figures for the main urban areas and regional councils every year (maybe even territorial authorities). One of the advantages of Wikipedia is that it's a dynamic encyclopedia so the content can be more up-to-date. Ben Arnold 23:37, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

According to this Wikipedia article, as of June 2011 Wellington has a bigger population (393,400) than Christchurch (380,900). So Christchurch is the third largest urban area of NZ. (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

However according to this article, Christchurch is the second largest urban area of NZ. If you want to broaden the area to include Upper Hutt, you may as well include Rolleston, Rangiora or Lincoln into Christchurch too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Underneath where the urban population is provided, there should be a metro population as both the Wellington and Auckland pages include this. Unfortunately, the definition of this in those articles is less clear or consistent.

Schwede66 (talk · contribs) has removed the 'terrorist attack' heading. If there is no objection, I will restore it. the Attack is the main reason that Christchurch is leading world news today; and appears to be much more noteworthy than the Port Hills fires with which it now shares a heading.

Saying that people died from a terrorist attack (as it is currently worded) is euphemistic & not how native speakers of any version of English would describe it. Jim Michael (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jim Michael: I suggest saying that "fifty-one people were killed in two consecutive terrorist attacks" isn't quite correct. The last person to die succumbed to their injuries seven weeks after the attack. Is there a better way to phrase that without implying that there were 51 deaths on the day? Schwede66 04:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"died due to", "died as a result of", "died following" AIRcorn (talk) 04:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Killed is better wording, because it's more specific & accurate. The sentence should be reorganised to say that Tarrant killed 51 people on 15 Mar 19. That's correct, because he did all the killing on that day, even though not all 51 died then. Jim Michael (talk) 08:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have swapped the file. Schwede66 00:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History section[edit]

The section headings are not ideal and I suggest changes and welcome comment. Ideally we should add time periods as in many other city articles. The term "Modern history" means more than just anything from about 1900, and the shootings are really current affairs, not history. Should we create sub headings of "Pre-European"; 1840-1945; 1945-2000; 2001-present, with further subsections for matters that greatly influenced the city, such as the quakes. These dates are fairly arbitrary and open to debate but point is still dividing up by time periods. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's an alternative thought: Christchurch has enough history for a stand-alone article. Several books have been written about Christchurch history. Maybe if we work on that article first. Once that's done, it becomes easier to have a summary article here. Schwede66 02:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like both suggestions. How about Roger 8 Roger, you start by adding the headings to the page, and when/if the new page A History of Christchurch is set up we can move content from the main page to the history page? Somej (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also has Christchurch reached the point where it needs a 'disasters' section? In count of people directly affected, we have the main earthquake, the attacks, and the Ballantynes fire. Somej (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

bold edits[edit]

Added an intro sentence on the attacks to the first section. Regrouped history slightly, and consolidated the Antarctic sections as well. Hope this points towards a better structure that will help organise what is becoming quite a large page. Somej (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On reflection, I like the idea of a new article on Chch history. If nobody then objects I will try to set it up. The idea of a Chch disasters section sounds interesting. I will see if a section will neatly fit into the new history article. My first thought though is that it will not fit. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


About the recent edits - I tend to agree with Schwede66 that recent events are not minor and would certainly stand get through the 10YT, meaning they should be included in an account of the city's history. However, I do think the section is heavily weighted towards contemporary events. This is a problem afflicting very many WP articles on places. Many editors seem to think that if something happened outside their memory or that of their parents then it did not happen or its importance is diminished. Even if an editor does not have that view, sources of past events are significantly less easy to find which makes only compounds the over weighting of contemporary events. Rather than say that this article if too focused on contemporary events, I think it is better described it as lacking detail of say, pre-1945 events. I think it would be useful not have sub-sections for narrowly defined contemporary time periods. I also prefer not to use the term 'modern history' when contemporary is meant. Better still would be 'Post 2000' or similar to avoid ambiguity. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, R8R. I like your thinking that it's not a case of recentism, but rather that there are earlier gaps. My thoughts:
  • Māori settlement – this section ought to be expanded
  • European settlement – this focuses on the first two or three decades of settlement. This history is relatively well known and is detailed enough. What happened post 1870 is glossed over.
  • 1900–2000 – very skinny.
  • Modern history – detailed enough.
What's missing? Municipal amalgamations (that's maybe an interesting topic in itself deserving of a standalone article) and population increases (closely related; population for what area?). The 1866 rates revolt spearheaded by Henry Wynn-Williams. The revolt itself is maybe not that notable, but it resulted in a 20-year delay of Christchurch getting a sewage system. It would have thus resulted in the indirect death of dozens or maybe even hundreds of people (I suspect that this is not well known). Architectural trends coming from Christchurch (Benjamin Mountfort's Gothic Revival architecture and a good hundred years later brutalism championed by Miles Warren). Transport needs a broader mention (we once had the second-largest tram network in Australasia) including air travel and airports, plus the ferry to Wellington. New Zealand’s first telegraph line (1862). Education should get a mention (colleges and high schools, the university). Industry, and it disappearing. A paragraph on media. There's probably heaps more. Bring on (more extreme) social distancing and I'll get the history books off my bookshelf. Schwede66 20:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]