Jump to content

Talk:Banks Peninsula

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

Banks Island

[edit]

Interestingly, with a 15 metre rise in sea levels, Banks Peninsula would be an island ;) - Gobeirne (talk) 21:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation?
More interestingly is that Cook, according to his journal, sighted "Banks Island" at daybreak on 16 February 1770 when he was about 8 league off the coast, so he might not have been able to even see the low coastal plains because "Gore's Bay" (now Pegasus Bay??) apparently swept away to the snowy mountain peaks and the coasline would have been on the edge of the horizon. In the afternoon of the same day, which became 17 February 1770 at Noon - because the calendar was running on Ship's Day, which starts at Noon before the Midnight on which the civil day starts (and if that is not enough to confuse you the astronomical day starts at Noon after the Midnight on which the civil day starts!) - he named the "island" after Mr. Banks. Also, Cook had sailed westward half-way around the world and because the dateline had not been invented his Ship's day was twelve hours behind Greenwich. So what is the correct date for the sighting? (And does it really matter?) - Cameron Dewe (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Banks Peninsula. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 09:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History cleanup reason

[edit]

The cleanup reason in the tag for the History section is given as "unprofessional". What is meant by this reason? Unprofessional is a redirect to "work behavior", which doesn't explain what is wrong. Neither does "Professional" offer any particular insights. If the editors concerned meant the section lacked citations then they should have specifically said so. If something else was wrong then they should have explained the problem. Because "unprofessional" is such a vague term, I don't know what problem(s) need(s) to be addressed. The plain English writing style generally seems OK to me, so I can only conclude the basic problem is a lack of citations for each statement. If there are other issues then these should be explicitly tagged with in-line cleanup tags in the places where they are observed. Otherwise I remain confused. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 03:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The tag was placed by user:DerbyCountyinNZ in April 2011. Maybe they could elaborate. Schwede66 17:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2011!! This isn't on my watch list so can't tell how much it has been improved since then. But it still needs some {{No footnotes|section}} and {{cn}} tags, and {{tone}} as well. I'll do it after Xmas dinner. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merry Christmas. Enjoy your dinner and welcome back to (the article on) Banks Peninsula. Schwede66 22:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The cleanup reason of "unprofessional" was added in this edit by User:Naru12333, so I was puzzled by what was really intended, and where. Hence the question here. A few in-line cleanup tags might provide a better focus about what is a priority to fix, because at the moment I don't really know where to start. I don't think anyone else knew where to start either because between that edit 2012 and my edit on Christmas Eve, very little has changed in the History section in terms of clean-up. Yes, some words have changed and mostly these are corrections or expansions to the text, but nothing has really changed concerning citations for verifying what has been written. I am not suggesting that this needs to be fixed immediately, given how long this has been tagged, but pointing out where in the text there is a problem would be more helpful. Thanks for the efforts so far. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bays section

[edit]

In the section about the Bays the order of the bays of Banks Peninsula seems to be clockwise from North to South, starting with Port Levy, but this is unstated. As a consequence Lyttelton Harbour is misplaced, while Sumner Bay and Taylor's Mistake are omitted. The heading for Akaroa contains a superflous "and", which suggests this list of section sub-headings have been compiled from an earlier list or text. It also suggests the article is focused more on perhaps an artificial political rather than natural geographic boundary. What are we talking about here? A natural geographic feature or a political community of interest. I have always considered the Port Hills part of Banks Peninsula as they have been formed by part of the same geological mechanisms. From the north Pegasus Bay sweeps into Scarborough Hill, but Shag Rock at the mouth of the Estuary marks the coastal transition from flat plains to the north and west to the volcanic peninsular to the south and east. Also, now that I mention it, Moncks Bay and McCormacks Bay in the Estuary perhaps could also be on the list. Before I charge in and make too many changes, does anyone have other opinions? - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think your reasoning is sound and I agree with it. A possible reason why places like Moncks Bay are often omitted from BP is simply local govt boundaries and constituancy boundaries, which do not always align with each other let alone with geographical realities. These administrative boundaries are more often in the minds of the public than geology or geography For example, until recently Banks Peninsular council did not cover the Port Hills which came under CCC, so places like Cashmere were torn between being part of BP, the Port Hills and Christchurch. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summit Road

[edit]

The statement that the Summit Road was "Built in the 1930s, the road is in two sections ..." could be misinterpreted that it was built in 2 sections. This would be dubious misinterpretation that needs further explanation. The road wasn't built that way, and isn't really just in 2 sections. If a section is taken as the portion of road between the access intersections of the roading network, then there is a section between Evans Pass and Godley Head - the Lighthouse road - which is a dead-end section that for a long time was not considered part of the Summit Road. Then there is a short section from Evans Pass to Mount Pleasant road; then a section past Sugarloaf to the Dyers Pass road intersection, then a section between Dyers Pass and Gebbies Pass; lastly a section around the Peninsular Summits at the heads of the various Bays. While it might now be split into two sections for touring convenience, each part of the road was built separately. To say everything was built in the 1930's is somewhat misleading. Bits and pieces were built earlier, with the Sumner Road over Evans pass commencing construction in 1849. Although joining the bits up mostly happened in the 1930's and that is a story that needs to be expanded on. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 05:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Information about locations

[edit]

A note to editors when providing information about locations mentioned in this article. The brief descriptions provided here are summaries. If a location is wiki-linked to another article that is specifically about a particular location please add your information about that location in that linked article, rather than here, because that will minimize the risk of duplicating information. You might even find the information there, already. If you think the description should be modified to include the information you wish to add, please consult the Manual of Style, first. Pay attention to the guidelines for writing lead sections, particularly the first sentence. Avoid adding trivial information. If the change is substantial then explain it on the talk page.

For places that do not have their own article; please remember your information needs to be written in an encyclopedic style and you should be able to cite your source(s). Additionally, consider how important the information is, before adding it into an encyclopedia article. Often the information will be relatively trivial, so it might be more appropriate, and more useful, being added to a travel guide such as Wikivoyage. Signage in a locality with statements like Private property, No camping, No pets, No fires permitted, Keep off the Grass, Walk on the Path. or Park in designated area ONLY. are able to be cited. Use an appropriate template. However, such signage contains instructions, which are not encyclopedic statements. Consider rephrasing such information in a more encyclopedic way, as more neutral facts, such as Access to the beach, which is across private land to the water's edge, is restricted to pedestrian using the designated path. or The land-owners impose behaviour restrictions on visitors that prohibit fires, camping, pets and limit vehicle parking to the carpark. In any case, the information added needs to result in a non-trivial, verifiable and informative summary about a location, so cite your reliable sources, too. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 06:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extent of Banks Peninsula

[edit]

I have added Diamond Harbour to the list of towns but taking a geo-physical viewpoint, the article should also include Lyttleton. The opening para makes it clear that the article is about the geographical entity rather than the previous political entity and, with that definition in mind, Lyttleton is clearly within Banks Peninsula. Any views ?  Velella  Velella Talk   19:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Velella Firstly, the spelling is Lyttelton. Secondly, it's at least questionable whether Lyttelton is part of Banks Peninsula. For example, Gordon Ogilvie's book Banks Peninsula has 29 chapters (25 of which are dedicated to geographic locations) but Lyttelton isn't one of them. So I'd say Lyttelton is out. Schwede66 21:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have just reverted the edit by Velella before seeing this talk page comment. Well, my point was it is questionable. IMO the peninsula is its geographic extent which is distinctly mared by the grantite uplift, and connected valleys, not the political definition. I had not noticed Olgivie's definition though. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have in front a me a Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust guide to walks around Lyttelton. It says: "Banks Peninsula results from sustained volcanic activity. The volcanic activity in Lyttelton toook place between 12 and 9.7 million years ago, forming cones up to 1500m high." Clearly defining Lyttelton as on Banks Peninsula? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What qualifications did Donald have that would make him a (geographically) reliable source for a definition of Banks peninsula? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having now read the "Acknowledgements" section of Ogilvie's book, it says that he wrote his book on the Port Hills first and that led to writing the Banks Peninsula book. As Lyttelton is in the Port Hills, it is clear that there was no reason to duplicate the effort, so Ogilvie's omission might not mean that he considered Lyttelton to not be part of the peninsula. I shall thus retract my view and am now open to other editor's views. Schwede66 23:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies first for unintentionally opening a can of worms and secondly for my spelling errors. I rely on an interactive spell checker which was clearly not working when I made me edits (but thankfully, is now). I had thought my proposition was not contentious and was posing the question more as a courtesy to other editors before making a significant addition. I took the very simple view that this article itself references "two large harbours" - assumed to be Akaroa and Lyttelton and thus, by implied inclusion adds Diamond Harbour and its sprawling suburbs to the peninsula and also , being on the shore of the harbour must also include Lyttelton itself, Rapaki, Cass Bay, Governors Bay etc. There are references for this. Dave Wilson in his excellent books on the flora includes plants from Lyttelton and Diamond Harbour within his compass. All the NZ government boundaries place the boundary along the crest of the Port Hills, which, although not logical from a physical geography point of view, is understandable and simple to use. Using a purely geologically based boundary would need to include significant chunk of Cashmere, and I doubt that there would be any refs that support that. I hope that these comment assist and I have no intention of labouring the point if there are better boundary definitions.  Velella  Velella Talk   23:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Velella. My thoughts too about Cashmere and all the hill suburbs that face north. I will try checking on whether there are references that put them on Banks Peninsula or somewhere else. My hunch is that many people would say the Hill suburbs are on the peninsula. I am not sure where else they would be. The Port Hills? But they are on the peninsula? Yes, the political devide is along the top which may lead many people to say the Hill suburbs are only in Christchurch city. DerbyCounty..I don't know what qualifications Rod Donald had but the comments were written by the trust not him. I am also not too sure if there is anything about the definition, geographically, that needs a geography expert - the difference between the non-grantite flat land around and the volcanic based raised land next to it is so sharp it forms a very distinct and unmistakeable boundary. In any case, Olgilvy is propably a slightly better source than the Trust, and it is the sources that will determine what is and what is not Banks Peninsula, but like with many local articles getting top grade RSSs may not be easy. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Omission of the definite article "the" before Banks Peninsula

[edit]

How come the definite article "the" is omitted before Banks Peninsula in this article? As far as I know, all peninsulas should have the definite article "the" written before their name. There are plenty of sources, including local NZ sources, which use "the Banks Peninsula" instead of just "Banks Peninsula", so I think the omission of the definite article "the" before Banks Peninsula is controversial and not universally agreed.

Sources:

A basic google search for "Banks Peninsula" yields 744,00 hits. For "the Banks Peninsula", 81,200 hits. Seems clear enough. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But what are the reasons for this? There must be a reason for this special case, isn't it? Vic Park (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again Vic. When used in NZ Banks Peninsula isn't referring to the geographical entity that is a peninsula but to the region that just happens to be mainly on the peninsula. Its the same as saying you live in Northland (the regional administrative area), not in the (geographical) North Land area. You could say 'Banks Peninsula is actually a peninsula' without it sounding odd, because people regard it first as a region, not a peninsula. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still sounds odd since it has the word "Peninsula" as a part of its name, but I get what you mean. Vic Park (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's another reason Vic Park why it isn't referred to as the banks peninsula. Its main geographical feature isn't as a peninsula but as a very large rock rising from the sea or from flat land. Almost all roads onto it change from flat to steep immediately and its many harbours and inlets have steep hills either side. So when locals talk about being on the peninsular that is what they first mean, being elevated or in a harbour or beach, not that they are on a peninsula. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On Google Maps, (the) Banks Peninsula really is a peninsula (albeit having a rugged terrain), not a very large rock or a quasi-island. When describing a peninsula, the definite article "the" should be used before its name (i.e. the Arabian Peninsula). Vic Park (talk) 11:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In what appears to be a coincidence, the same issue has just come up here. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 13:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Banks_Peninsula&oldid=1199971137"