Happy New Year!
	Wishing you all the best! Rosiestep (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! There's an issue regarding referencing in the Ormond Wilson DYK nomination that should be taken care of before its review is completed. Thanks!--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Years Schwede. I noticed that you prefer the look generated by <nowkik> - </nowiki> in the parlboxs - should we add that to the code rather than to each box individually or is something that you only prefer to add some of the time? Mattlore (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HNY to you, too. I usually take my guidance from MOS, but WP:YEAR is one of the areas that is poorly documented. For example, it expresses a preference for year ranges to be shown like (1881–86), but I've had a lengthy discussion with somebody who looks after British politics articles that it has always been four digit years for the closing years, and in fact the change to MOS was made without discussion. Ah well, so I've adopted the four digit closing year as per longstanding British practice. The other issue is that when words are part of the range, then the endash has spaces on either side, which is why I've been converting parlboxes 'on sight'. But again, this is not documented at all in MOS.

If that could be incorporated into the code, that would be fantastic! Schwede66 22:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I didn't fully understand the MOS requirements. That might have to go in the too hard basket for now unfortunately as I'm not sure about getting the box to recognise text instead of numbers. As an aside, I have always preferred the four digit style over the two. I thought the MOS stated both were acceptable, but obviously it now has a preference. Mattlore (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we can set our own rules for how a parlbox is laid out. I'll shift this discussion to the parlbox talk page sometime later; that's probably where it should be. Schwede66 00:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copied to the NZ parlbox talk page

Hi. I've reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Trevor de Cleene. If you could take a few minutes to review my comments, that would be appreciated. --LauraHale (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have added the names given in Wilson for them; more than twenty! Hugo999 (talk) 04:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And all have stub articles now Hugo999 (talk) 04:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic. Well done! Schwede66 05:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Schwede66, Thanks for the article on JB Callan snr. Happy New Year!Rick570 (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Schwede. You've been working on a number of articles on people you describe in the LEAD as "runholders". I had never heard of this term, so I looked it up. The definition was "one who leases or owns a run". So I still have no idea what it means! Based on the context, I suspect this is NZ-local terminology for "settler" or "sheep farmer"? In any event, might I be so bold as to suggest replacing these instances in the LEAD with more generic terminology? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. I have some hazy memory of somebody once asking me about the term runholder before. I had no idea that it's an Australasian term (English isn't my first language, after all, and all I know is New Zealand English). I'll see what I can do; maybe it's more useful to have a Wiktionary entry for runholder and link to it. Or even a short page on Wikipedia itself? It might well be useful to explain the term, because when you follow the wiki articles to their sources and read official biographies of early runholders (as it were), you'd inevitably be confronted with this term. Schwede66 17:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a Wiktionary entry for runholder and the following code links to it: [[wiktionary:runholder|runholder]] Schwede66 18:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at this… but it basically directs me to the article on run (in true dictionary fashion!). I assume the sub-definition in question is "An enclosure for an animal; a track or path along which something can travel.". In this case, it would seem that the proper genetic term is "sheep farmer", no? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that sub-definition isn't right. You'll have to imagine huge wide countryside, nobody living there, and depending on climatic conditions anything from semi-desert (Australia) to densely clad forest (more common in New Zealand). So some settler turns up and takes the land, commonly without permission from anyone (that's when the term squatter is used), and sometimes with permission (as in the case of Acland and Tripp). Where the vegetation isn't suitable for sheep, it gets burned (the fires lit by Acland and Tripp could be seen for 80 miles) to encourage growth of grass. We are talking land by the square kilometre and only when sheep numbers increased, they starting fencing it to stop the sheep from neighbouring runs mixing. Australia got settled before New Zealand, so it was more extreme in the former country, with land locked up by squatters. That's why many areas of New Zealand had regulations in place to prevent the same extremes, but it still got all taken up in a real hurry. And ultimately, the hunger for land led to the New Zealand wars. Schwede66 19:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Schwede66

I stumbled across a couple of your articles today, via the "Did You Know..." box. Very interesting! However, for the benefit of the rest of the world, please inform your readers already in the intro which country the person is from, and what he/she is best known for.

I'm probably not the only one in the world who associates Canterbury with England, not New Zealand, so the "Did You Know..." text stating that "... that J.B.A. Acland (pictured) and his friend George Tripp were the first settlers in Canterbury to establish sheep farms in the high country?" was somewhat puzzling. And when I clicked on the articles for the two gentlemen, I found that one of them was a "runholder" in South Canterbury, while the other article has no regular intro at all, but starts with the person's early life (which is then largely repeated under "Early life"). Both articles require quite a lot of reading before you realise that they are about gentlemen in New Zealand.

And what is a "runholder"? After much googling I've come to the conclusion that "runholder" is an Aussi and Kiwi word for a landowner who uses his/her land for animal grazing, so in this case "runholder" must mean "sheep farmer", as that's what the two gentlemen were. However, for most readers "runholder" is a very unusual word. Also, please not that in the rest of the world, "station" means "railway station" or perhaps some kind of government-run overseer station (ranger station), not "farm" or the US equivalent "ranch".

So, if I may suggest, the intro for John Acland could be:

The Hon. John Barton Arundel Acland (25 November 1823 – 18 May 1904), often referred to as JBA Acland or J.B.A. Acland, was a prominent 19th century pioneering sheep farmer in the Canterbury Region on New Zealand's South Island, who also served on the New Zealand Legislative Council for more than 30 years.

And the intro for George Tripp could read:

Charles George Tripp (1 July 1826 – 6 July 1897) was a prominent 19th century pioneering sheep farmer in the Canterbury Region on New Zealand's South Island. Together with his friend and business partner John Acland, he was the first to use the New Zealand high country for sheep farming.

I would like to suggest that you revisit your biographical articles and try to harmonise them to fit the normal Wikipedia biographical articles, i.e. a short intro which contains the person's birth (and death), which country he/she was mainly active in, and what he/she is chiefly known for. Assume that you're writing the articles for someone in the UK, England, South Africa or Germany, not for someone in New Zealand.

Good luck! Thomas Blomberg (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great to get two pieces of feedback on a DYK. I can't recall that this has happened before (and I've had a few on the homepage). I shall respond to the issues that you have raised:

• 'New Zealand' should have been mentioned in the hook text. Not sure how I missed that (readers are always confused when they see New Zealand's Canterbury without the country name). Even more surprising that the reviewer didn't pick it up, as she's a rather senior editor (based in the US, I believe).
• Regarding runholder, please see the response to the previous entry on my talk page.
• Acland lead - I wrote that in a real hurry just before the article went onto the homepage. The lead was too long and I have now shortened it (it might still be a tad too long). What you suggest is much too short, though. The lead is supposed to summarise the article, so if you have a long article, you end up with a long lead. Please have a look at WP:MOSINTRO.
• Tripp lead - have modified it along your suggestions with some factual corrections. Thanks for the link to High country (New Zealand), as I wasn't aware of that article.
• Feel free to have a look through some of the bios written by me; I'm pretty sure they comply with what you suggest, but they are often longer than what you have in mind in line with MOSINTRO, especially since some feedback that my leads should be longer.

Again, thanks for taking the time to give me some feedback. That's much appreciated. Schwede66 18:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have written (brief) article on Mary Patricia Anderson while I have Wilson out; may write articles on the first (11 Oct 1872) Maori MLCs, Mokena Kohere and Wiremu Tako Ngatara. Presumably no template for MLCs. And have added note to "suicide squad" article that Evening Post says 25 not 20 were appointed in June 1950. Hugo999 (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff. I'll be working on the list of MLCs this week. Schwede66 05:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I just wanted to say good on you for all the work you are doing on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/NZ/Dictionary of New Zealand Biography page. It seems like all those names will get an article some time this year at the rate you are going at (which is very pleasing indeed!). Kind regards.Calaka (talk) 07:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's not me who's putting up the articles. I'll just tidy up the lists. Schwede66 08:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - superb job in sprucing up this article; thank you for your hard work. I've added your name to the contributors list at the DYK nomination in recognition; if you'd rather not be listed please feel free to rollback my edit there. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 22:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I've only just started with Mr Maddison. There's lots to come. Thanks to you for getting the article started (and to Stuart's efforts of getting a stub for every DNZB bio onto WP). Schwede66 23:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just came across the DYK Hall of Fame page and noticed that you qualify for one of the largest multiple hooks in DYK history. (I wrote you in.) They even have an icon that you can add to your talk page. Best, Yoninah (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I once worked on a 25 article hook, but gave up on it, as the task was too daunting. Many of those articles have been published since, but there are others that I have still got to research. That would have put me right up there, eh? Schwede66 02:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for this page to be split. It clearly needs to be split, Are you willing to do it? It may be difficult for non experts on the subject to do. Op47 (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for implying that I am an expert. I'm not! That said, I'm currently working on another architect bio. I'll do it when I get to it. Schwede66 18:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User talk:Bridgetfox I'm confused. Didn't think it was appropriate or even acceptable to remove content from one's talk page unless it's strictly personal and disagreeable to the user. You seem to be teaching that user that that's OK. ??? SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLANKING says that "policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred." So it's ok to remove stuff, even if it's not preferred. Schwede66 19:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've now read this, and I'm too lazy right now to investigate whether or not it has been changed since I read it last. Seems to bear you and Bridgetfox out as now given, in any case. As long as there's no more extensive geanealogy bombing / name dropping, I won't object. I never doubted good faith there. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your offer with Ulenspiegel. My main problem is finding the sources. The article I translated had zip. What it had was some links showing that books in the "Literatur" section existed. If you have access to any of the books listed and can find the sources for these issues, that would be great. Sometimes, stuff is on Google Books, but not always, unfortunately. Marrante (talk) 10:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I finally got round to this and see that the article is nicely referenced and has even been on DYK already. Nice work! Sorry for being 'late'. I wondered what the relationship was to Eulenspiegel; now I know. Schwede66 02:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KiaOra - Tony Wallace here. Can we please discuss teapot tapes edits on the talk page for teapot tapes. I have given a rationale for my edits, and they were referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony.wallace.nz (talk • contribs) 06:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was pretty silly of me to have left that ref like that, but it was late and I was mainly trying to wrap things up and shut down my computer. I have now fixed the ref properly — the previous one was also added when I was rushing to shut down and I tried to save myself some time by snagging one from the Herbert Sandberg article, but the one I grabbed was the one that I had used to establish that he had known Emil Carlebach at Buchenwald. I should have just done what I did now, google Sandberg's name + Buchenwald. I came up with a ref that had all the info in it, which I would have grabbed, had I taken a bit more time. (It was already used in the Sandberg article, too.) Anyway, now the main hook can be used, but since it was promoted before I saw your note, I had to yank it from prep, but it was not restored to the nom page, so now it's in blue limbo. I have written on the talk page that the problem has been fixed, but when I last looked, the template was still blue. Sorry for the mix-up. Marrante (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Hugh Gourley at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Rosiestep (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Michael Hart (mayor) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! – Muboshgu (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Schwede66, Thank you very much for all your help! Rick570 (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! Schwede66 00:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about the "suicide squad" article be made a regular article not a project; it looks finished! Hugo999 (talk) 00:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My plan is as follows:

• bring the suicide squad article up to DYK standard (referencing needs to be improved for that)
• finish the MLC list article and add sufficient prose so that it also meets DYK standards
• then publish both articles and submit them as one hook to DYK.

Sounds ok? Schwede66 07:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now an article, see Suicide squad (New Zealand). The List article looks complete too Hugo999 (talk) 09:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Schwede - Thanks for adding that answer on my talk page about images. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 03:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the photo's to the Cecil Wood article NealeFamily (talk) 07:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea – just been to the fridge. I reckon articles with photos are much more interesting, hence I put quite a bit of effort into hunting for images. Schwede66 08:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Schwede66 - just took a look at this article and wondered about the name. I don't know a lot about Women's rugby but wondered if it would be better to have a title "2011 Women's International Rugby Tests" (I presume there is one called '2011 start of year' or similar that could be amalgamated)?. It must have taken a look of work to get all those stats - I take my hat off to you. NealeFamily (talk) 07:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article title doesn't sound quite right, but I have had nothing to do with that article (other than fix a spelling mistake). When it comes to NZ rugby articles, I recommend you go to User:Mattlore. Schwede66 08:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've passed it on to Mattlore. NealeFamily (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the existence of 2011 end of year rugby tests for men's matches, it might end up being in the right place. I'll raise it with the rugby union project. Mattlore (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was mean, you strung me along and I made every necessary improvement and showed you everything I included was true with references and in good faith.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In recognition of all the work you’ve done lately! 66.87.0.115 (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Schwede66 20:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of New Zealand general election, 1875–76 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Lihaas (talk) 08:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - just have a look at Special:Newpages. It lists all the new pages created in article-space as they come online. And it can be configured to show all new pages, too, if you so desire. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Schwede66 - responded to your message on my talk page. Is there a template for letting you know that? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 09:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied in talk page. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 15:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Schwede - I'll keep an eye on that conversation. Thanks, amigo! --Rosiestep (talk) 05:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. What exactly do you mean? Eddaido (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 'normal' way of formatting a person's entry on a dab page would be [[somebody Lascelles]] (yyyy–yyyy) and not [[somebody Lascelles|somebody Lascelles (yyyy–yyyy)]], wouldn't it? But I did not mean to offend with my edit summary, in case you did take offence. I edited just one of those entries, as it showed square brackets (an obvious editing mistake). Schwede66 21:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It started because there was no other useful way to differentiate between a series of people with the same name and doing the same things so (if you were hunting for the right Henry Lascelles) it seemed best to make them, and then others, consistent. regards, Eddaido (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The article 'Mayor of Palmerston North' has a dead link that could not be repaired automatically. Can you help fix it?

Dead: http://www.palmerstonnorth.com/YourCouncil/CityCouncil/Elections/Detail.aspx?id=704

• You added this in February 2010.
• The bot tested this link on 28 March, 30 March, 1 April and today, but it never worked.
• The bot checked The Wayback Machine and WebCite but couldn't find a suitable replacement.

This link is marked with {{Dead link}} in the article. Please take a look at that article and fix what you can. Thank you!

PS- you can opt-out of these notifications by adding {{Bots |deny=BlevintronBot}} to your user page or user talk page. BlevintronBot (talk) 23:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I came across Template:New Liberal Party and Template:New Liberal. Looks like an unfinished project of yours. I don't think there is a need for these footer templates for the New Liberal Party (New Zealand). Shall we delete them? Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It will be useful to have a template much like Template:NZ Reform Party. I'll work on it. But it should be called Template:New Zealand Liberal Party (or with NZ in it), so both those early attempts can go. Schwede66 21:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Template:NZ Reform Party was pushing it as a template. The same may apply to [[Template:New Liberal Party]. Wouldn't a "See also" section be enough? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to do a {db-author} on the unneeded template and redir? Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the db-author business. But why do you say that Template:NZ Reform Party is pushing it? Where can I read up what a template should and shouldn't achieve? By the way, Template:NZ Liberal Party does exist already. Schwede66 05:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Schwede 66, Sorry to bother you about this. I have been trying to alter the succession box for the Te Atatu electorate but can't replace "incumbent" with Phil Twyford. If you look at the Chris carter page you will see what I have succeeded in doing. Would you be able to correct it? Thanks very much.Rick570 (talk) 08:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no trouble. The parameters were simply in the wrong order. Sorry, didn't spot this earlier when I mended the year range issue. Schwede66 08:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much.Rick570 (talk) 09:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

I understand it's just a suggestion to get me involved in the team work of reviewing articles, however currently I don't really have time for that and won't have until after 3 weeks at least. Mohamed CJ (talk) 20:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we keep the discussion in one place. Please post at Template:Did you know nominations/Prisons in Bahrain. Schwede66 21:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work on NZ politicians. I am currently editing some NZ politicians articles for: unnecessary burial details (eg. like so & so died & was buried "one day", "two days", "three days later"-a previous editor has a fixation (or perversion?) about how many days people were buried after they died!); also editing to modern English (20th or 21st Century) from a 19th Century Jane Austen or Bronte Sisters writing style!; and removing any irrelevant biographical material through previous poor editing (or flagrant cut & paste by a prior editor!). The Bible for this editing seems to be the NZ Encyclopedia of 1906. The offending editor is an expert at copying great screeds of material from this publication verbatium! Any help on this vast editing & correcting project would be very much appreciated! Cheers, Otakaro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otakaro (talk • contribs) 19:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Please note that The Cyclopedia of New Zealand is vanity press (many details are incorrect and contributions often portray individuals in a rather biased fashion), but the content can be used verbatim, as it's available under a Creative Commons licence (which is not to say that the English shouldn't be updated). As long as that licensing status is referred to in the references section, there is nothing wrong with using the text. When you edit contributions, make sure that you do not delete references, as they may verify more than just a burial detail. Thanks for your help! Schwede66 19:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up Schwede 66. Yes, the language used in these NZ politician articles is very antiquated! Apology for the reference removal. Will keep you updated on progress...Otakaro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otakaro (talk • contribs) 19:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Roach (soccer) has been expanded (I believe) beyond the 1,500 character mark. I copy-pasted into MA Word and used that to check, but I don't know if there's an official WikiWay to decide that. Any assistance you could offer would be helpful. Cheers! Achowat (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Till I Go Home ^{talk edits} 03:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm just going to put this category issue through the ringer of process so it can settle somewhere. Feel free to comment. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I have left a comment there. Schwede66 21:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Schwede66, Has the decision on restoration or demolition of the Christchurch Catholic Cathedral been made yet? If it has not been made, I think the Cathedral should not be in the category of ex-churches and should be taken out, at least for the moment. Kind regards, Rick570 (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No formal decision has been announced yet. It looks and feels like a 'former church', but for now, I have removed that category again. Schwede66 01:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Schwede66. I think the RCs will be very reluctant to demolish it, mostly because of the enormous sacrifices so many, mainly poor, Canterbury families made to build it 100 years ago. There is very strong emotional attachment by the community to the building. Also it is a particularly fine and original building for architectural reaons. It will be interesting to see what happens. Thanks a lot.Rick570 (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved discussion by User:Aardean on John Brian Burke to the article talk page, as that's where it belongs. Schwede66 20:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]