Talk:Mackenzie Basin

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

New Zealand High‑importance This 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.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

What is the Makensie Basin? A gorge or alluvial plain?

Certainly not a gorge. My guess is an alluvial plain created from all the outwash gravels after glaciation. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys why is there no map on the page?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sol1869 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ingolfson, why are you repeatedly removing references to ski areas which are relevant to the article, while introducing an external article which references and promotes ski areas outside the article's subject area?

It has been established factually that the Ohau, Roundhill and Mount Dobson ski areas all fall within the scope of the article and all three are commercial fields, yet you repeatedly delete references to Mount Dobson ski area from the article, while editting the page to assert (erroneously) that the other two (Ohau and Roundhill) are club fields, when they are demonstrable and obviously commercial ski areas.

There is already at least one major article on Wikipedia which references Queenstown-area ski fields, so why introduce references to those within an article which is not at all related to those ski areas? And why do you continually add a link/reference to the magazine/newspaper article which is also unrelated? Do you have any undeclared connection with either the Queenstown area ski fields and/or the magazine/newspaper article you continually reference?

For the record, I live and work in the MacKenzie Basin, but I am not a skier or snowboarder, and have no connection of any kind with any of the three MacKenzie Basin ski areas in question. (Ohau, Round Hill or Mount Dobson.) Since you reside in another part of the country entirely, why introduce completely erroneous edits into an otherwise completely factual Wiki article? Cheers. 210.54.245.44 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

"It has been established factually..."

And right there we start going off the rails (somewhere between innocent misunderstanding and you constantly accusing me of "self-promotion", accusing me of bias and not following NPOV (I'll have you know that I don't care much either way for skiing and have no connection to skifields anywhere - you can easily check my edit summary, where you see that about 99.9999% of my numerous edits are unrelated to Queenstown, skiing or the Mackenzie Basin).

This talk page edit yours is the first time that you actually explained that the fact that the skifields discussed are partly in the Queenstown area and not in the Mackenzie Basin area is what really seems to bother you. You instead constantly harped on about the difference between "commercial" and "club" skifield (about which, again, I do not care, EXCEPT THAT THE REFERENCE SAID SO, ERRONEOUSLY OR NOT). It took you multiple edit tugs of war before you actually provided a link which proved your point (references ARE king on Wikipedia, so I stand by all my prior deletes of your changes before that point). Once you clarified that, I let your change re club / commercial skifields stand.

In summary, I am sick of this, but will not be bullied into removing a reference which discusses the Mackenzie Basin skifields, because a) this is relevant to the article, and b) comments by a travel editor of a major newspaper saying the local skifields are "more spartan and less crowded" do not rise to the level of slander (if they do, sue the Herald, mate - I think its a perfectly innocuous opinion and not even negative as such to start with). Ingolfson (talk) 08:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet when I provided the links which prove that the Mackenzie Basin ski areas are commercial fields and not club ones, you immediately removed them, claiming "commercial link spam". It _appeared_ as if you just didn't like to see that proof, since you've constantly reverted the page to a version which describes the ski areas as "mere" club fields, when they aren't.

As for the completely irrelevant magazine article reference which you have _yet again_ restored, the question remains as to why you're so determined that it should be included when it has virtually nothing to do with the subject of the Wiki article itself. It focuses on and promotes the Queenstown area, an area not at all wihin the scope of the Wikipedia Mackenzie Basin entry. So why restore it? In the context of the Mackenzie Basin entry, the article is irrelevant and non-notable. 210.54.245.44 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

As I have mentioned tons of times before, it talks about the Mackenzie area ski fields, NOT the Queenstown skifields. It's a bloody travel report about them. While talking about them, it compares A with B, a rather common technique in human communication. It also does not put down the Mackenzie skifields. Some people LIKE "spartan and less crowded" skifields.

Yes I am determined to keep this in, because Wikipedia should not constantly go back to the lowest common ground just because someone disagrees with something even though its referenced. Removing material affects POV just as much as adding material. I might just as well question why you are willing to go to such lengths to keep it out. Impasse, it seems. Ingolfson (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ingolfson, the completely irrelevent article you repeatedly attach to this Wiki entry BARELY refers to the subject. (Did you write it, perhaps?) Your claim that the Mackenzie Basin area skifields are "spartan" and "less crowded", etc, is entirely non-npov: For somebody claiming to be so desperately concerned about the rules of Wikipedia, I find it strange and hypocritical that you should ignore them when it suits your personal agenda.

Then there is the following glaringly illogical statement "The many smaller skifields of the area..." - There are THREE skifields in the Mackenzie Basin, and they have all been noted by name within the Mackenzie Basin Wikipedia entry. It's not as if there are dozens of skifields in the area, of many different sizes. There are THREE in total - Ohau, Roundhill, and Mount Dobson - and all three are commercial and considered small by industry standards, hence the description of them in the entry as "...small commercial skifields...".

So, recapping: There are a total of three skifields in the Mackenzie Basin area, all of them small and all of them commercial. Their continued existence supports the claim that they are "...popular amongst many living in Canterbury and Otago." The article you repeatedly add as a reference has essentially zero relevance to the subject of this Wikipedia entry, therefore it should not be included, as per the "rules" of Wikipedia. Likewaise, claims which do not have any proven basis in fact, such as those regarding the allegedly "spartan" nature of the Mackenzie Basin skifields, also have no place within the entry. 210.54.245.44 (talk) 05:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come on guys, you're both right! I think Ingolfson's ref is excellent, although it's a little out of date because, as 210.54.245.44 has correctly stated, there are only three ski areas in the Mackenzie and yes, all three are small and commercial. There are no club fields left around here and hasn't been for ages. The nearest would be the Awakino field up behind Kurow, which is not generally considered to be in the Mackenzie. So yeah, the article isn't entirely accurate, and it does devote lot of space to areas outside of the Mackenzie, but overall I'd rate it as relevent to the subject. Re the spartan uncrowded wording, I would ditch the spartan part. The local ski areas used to be a bit rough when compared with the big flash fields elsewhere but they aren't like that now and a lot of money has been spent on them in recent years. I would suspect they are less crowded than the big fields so that wording can probably stay. How long these ski fields will last is a matter of conjecture. There has been less snow every year for many years and only the snow guns are keeping them going. All three fields have been up for sale for a number of years. The planned new ski area up in the Duncan valley has been scrapped as unviable due to the lack of reliable snowfall. So anyway, for what it's worth, I vote to include Ingolfson's article but delete the words 'club' and 'spartan'. 203.173.161.63 (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do NOT listen to someone who constantly, and right from the start, accuses me of bias, of lying and of commercial promotion. Do you really think I am so stupid that even if I were trying to promote Queenstown skifields, I would be doing it by engaging in one tiny edit war in a minor article? And otherwise never edit any other skiing-related articles? I am doing this because I disagree with those who try to constantly boil down Wikipedia articles to the lowest common denominator, and would remove things that don't please them as "irrelevant" even if they were referenced by ten newspapers.

I now stop presuming good faith (and should have done so long before). I accuse the editor who constantly removes a valid reference as clearly being a vandal, who is also obviously trying to hide something, but is happy to accuse a long-standing editor as a spammer from his "anonymous" position. I also refuse to reduce the reference content even further because if you cut out the "spartan" comment, there will be nothing left - and except for the "commercial" aspect which said editor took forever to prove the contrary, it's all relevant. A 2007 reference is also quite new enough, thank you. Ingolfson (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, to show that I am doing more that proving a point here, I am now adding new references - including one rather well-referenced one which puts to rest the whole "club" vs "commercial" part of the dispute which anonymous thought he had finally won. The fields ARE often club-managed, yet are commercially accessible. Thanks. Ingolfson (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, I should have known better than to argue, and instead gone straight to research to back up the disputed reference - just found another reference in an official Ministy of Environment report that also compares the local skifields to Queenstown and comes to similar conclusions. Two out of two. Ingolfson (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

too much of this wasteful behaviour in this space. one editor says he "wont be bullied" right after saying that " I let you change".. doh!! lets be more tolerant here, and move on to the pressing jobs like new articles and raising the standard of stubbs etcPaul Moss (talk) 21:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greets from Japan to you. I have ski Ohau, Dobson and ski Round Hill 2005 & 2007. All are not club field. All are businesses and comercial. Ohau, Dobson, RH are very small field and equipments. Good fields butt need more snow. There is no debating for this here. Area ski field only Ohau Dobson & RH. 119.238.82.148 (talk) 11:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tempest in a teacup folks. Even though I do not understand the opposition to Ingolfsons ref, he is wrong when he claims there are many skiing areas here -- there are only the 3 areas already listed and they are purely 100% commercial. I doubt if there has been any club involvement in a long time, if ever. Possibly when Roundhill was in its early days, although even then it was not really ever a club field per se. I agree with his assessment of them being uncrowded and spartan because I spend a lot of time at the much bigger ski areas around NZ, which are far more developed and the 3 Mackenzie areas are nothing like those so far as crowds and facilities go. Dobson, Roundhill and Ohau are commercial, small, uncrowded, spartan. The ref is suitable. 222.152.135.18 (talk) 03:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not "many" there are 3. Why is this saying there are many? They are the Round Hill, Ohau and Mount Dobson. 119.238.82.148 (talk) 14:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the reference stating they were club fields, this is an instance where reliance on references is misleading. The Dictionary of New Zealand English defines a club as 4. an association of persons united by a common interest, usu. meeting periodically for a shared activity (tennis club; yacht club). 5. an organisation or premises offering members social amenities, meals and temporary residence, etc. 6. an organisation offering subscribers certain benefits (book club). 7. a group of persons, nations, etc., having something in common. Club fields, are in fact, run by clubs. Ohau has been listed on the sharemarket, and Round Hill and Mount Dobson are both family-owned. Not clubs. Club fields tend to point out that they're owned by clubs (e.g., [1], [2], [3]), which conveniently fit the dicdef of a club. I also removed some weaselling about 'bigger' ski areas, as I'd suggest (entirely on local knowledge) that Ohau and Dobson are also bigger than Round Hill, currently, both with chairlifts. Interestingly, Tekapo (as Round Hill was known previously) was originally one of the Big Three skifields of New Zealand, up there with Coronet and Whakapapa in the 70s. Some poor snow in the 80s and other things meant that its influence has waned, but it really really isn't a club. Oh, and for another day, Dobson is in the Mackenzie District, but probably not in the Mackenzie Basin. It's in the Two Thumb range separating the Mackenzie from the plane around Fairlie (and accessed from the other side of Burkes Pass). Fox Peak, which is a club field is also located in the Mackenzie District (but not basin). --Limegreen (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Limegreen - I am post exactly same you at time!!! My friends at place refer to the early article and here is reply.

"Thanks for the link, it gave me quite a chuckle! What a mess. The problem is that Ingolfson(?) is confusing the terms Mackenzie District and Mackenzie Basin. The Mackenzie District is a political entity and encompasses diverse areas and locales, including the southern outskirts of Geraldine township, as well as coastal settlements such as the city of Timaru, and there may very well be 'many' small and/or club ski fields to be found in that much larger expanse. However, the Mackenzie BASIN is a physical and geographical feature, not a political one or some mere boundary contrivance by map makers. As the Wikipedia article rightly states, the Mackenzie Basin encompasses 'only' that area of the South Island between Burkes Pass and the Lindis Pass, and the Southern Alps and the Waitaki Valley. The only ski areas of any kind in the Mackenzie Basin are those listed in the existing article, namely Mount Dobson, Roundhill, and Lake Ohau. In fact some could almost argue legitimately that Mount Dobson is outside the northern limit of the Mackenzie Basin, although frankly it'd be a very close call, and I personally would dispute such a claim. So, what else? Well, there is an old and mostly defunct club ski field on Awakino mountain, behind the small Waitaki valley town of Kurow, but claiming it is within the Mackenzie Basin (or even the Mackenzie District) is wrong. Aside from being defunct, it is officially a Waitaki District locale. How many ski fields and areas of any type are there within the borders of the Mackenzie District? Sorry, I don't know. But within the Mackenzie Basin there are only three ski fields and ski areas. Thanks again for your question, it provided welcome entertainment!"

So 3 skiing area in Mackenzie BASIN. Thank for listening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.238.82.148 (talk) 08:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "club" / "commercial" issue was based on the fact that the original reference did call them "club skifields". That has long since been fixed, and for what it is worth, the debate has improved the article in that regard. However, had I not resisted the simple deletion, there would not be any mention of the fields at all, because that was the reaction that occurred. Ingolfson (talk) 07:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That claim is simply untrue. When the links to the websites of the skifields were posted and so it was demonstrated conclusively to you that the skifields were commercial, you deleted those links and claimed they were spam, and reverted the article back to your version which claimed there were "many" "club" fields, rather than the factual "three commercial" fields. Quite simply, you didn't like being proved wrong. And now you don't like the idea that you may "lose" an edit war, even though your versions aren't NPOV, and may be factually incorrect. 203.173.161.63 (talk) 11:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This entire article could use some TLC, imho, and not just the skifield-related information. Too much of the article is clearly non-npov, and really does seem like it's from a Tourism NZ brochure. I live and work in the Mackenzie Basin/High Country, and can say that most of the information is this article is essentially pretty accurate, it's just that there's a bit of hyperbole and/or unnecessary and irrelevant trivia: eg, the three small commercial skifields in the Basin are mentioned and listed, but anything else related to them is best left to a Wikipedia article about them. Perhaps a non-partisan editor who has yet to contribute to the Mackenzie Basin article could perform a cleanup service? 203.173.161.63 (talk) 07:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a new Wikipedia entry (or entries) be created to promote the Mackenzie Basin skifields and ski areas. In-depth discussion of them doesn't seem appropriate within the existing entry. If Ingolfson is so determined to describe them in detail, perhaps he should create the new entry or entries. Or maybe an entry by a contributor who is not so obviously biased would be a better solution? Alan Liefting? His version (which I have reverted to current) seemed like a good start. 203.173.161.63 (talk) 07:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This good-length article has a single short paragraph about skifields, which amongst other things provides usage data etc... And which has a major newspaper and a frikking government report as references. That is in no way undue weight for what is a major tourism industry in such a sparsely settled area. To constantly delete this is more than just a disagreement. It is against Wikipedia's rules and spirit, and as the anonymous has several times allowed to let shine through, based on the fact that he is pissed of that someone would dare to compare these skifields to the Queenstown fields. To now ask for a splitting off is just purely hilarious. So the material is now okay, as long as it is hidden out of sight? Nope! I have no problem with another editor splitting it off AFTER he creates more material. If it is split off like it is now, I can just see the "merge with Mackenzie Basin" tag being perfectly reasonable, for laughing out loud. And anyway, anonymous, the summary paragraph retained here would pretty much have to cover the same things as the paragraph does now.

As for the constant charges being made against me - I do not even know how to ski, have never been at the fields, have no connection to their operators, and have since the beginning of this farce tried to accommodate criticism. Biased indeed. Try "Not a pushover". I will not walk away from this and let Wikipedia be made poorer for it. Ingolfson (talk) 06:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I had no problem with changes like the removal of "extraordinarily beautiful" (which wasn't my addition anyway). That is an opinion statement, without a reference to boot. All the material in the disputed para is referenced, and phrased in NPOV-form. Ingolfson (talk) 07:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion for the skifield paragraph would be something like:

There are 3 skifields in the McKenzie Basin, Ohau (near Omarama), and Roundhill and Mount Dobson at Lake Tekapo.^[1] These fields are smaller and less crowded than those in the Queenstown area,^[2] providing a more "relaxed experience" than the larger fields.^[1]

Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ 09:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I cannot agree. This entry is not (or shouldn't be) a tourism brochure for the Mackenzie Basin, or the skifields within it. The above suggested paragraph, with its highly suspect "description" of those skifields, is completely non-NPOV, and highly irrelevant. The previous edits accurately stated that there are three small(er) commercial skifields within the Mackenzie Basin, and named them. What more needs to be said?

Remember, this is an entry for-and-about the Mackenzie Basin, not a travel brochure extolling the virtues of the skifields within the Mackenzie Basin. Let's try to keep it factual, and maintain a NPOV. To do that, Ingolfson's edit has to be reverted back to previous NPOV versions. Unfortunately, this seems to have become more about Ingolfson "not losing" an edit war, and less about maintaining a sensible entry. 203.173.161.63 (talk) 11:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fairly small part of the articel. It's well-sourced, and the POV is clearly attributed to the source publications, so is not a problem. If there's contrary POV, then present it, but if their's nothing to contradict it, there's no problem with the presentation as it stands. David Underdown (talk) 12:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreed. The paragraph is a disproportionately large chunk of the article and is obviously not NPOV. It reads like an advertising blurb from a ski magazine or local tourism office. This is the Wiki entry for the Mackenzie Basin, not for skifields within the Mackenzie Basin. If Ingolfson is so determined to post non NPOV hyperbole about those skifields, he should move this material to an entry dedicated to them, and see how it fares there. Meanwhile I'm not going to edit this page anymore. Yay! Ingolfson won the edit war! Huzzah! 203.173.161.63 (talk) 07:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not set out to "win an edit war". I showed - here, and here that there is no consensus amongst other editors for your opinion. Ingolfson (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mackenzie Basin. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071030103948/http://www.hermitage.co.nz/accommodation/hillary-planetarium/ to http://www.hermitage.co.nz/accommodation/hillary-planetarium/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 15:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]