Talk:Wellington Botanic Garden

Looks like a dupe

Oops -- it looks as if this page is a dupe of the Wellington Botanical Gardens page, so they should be merged. My fault, unfortunately, since I hadn't noticed that the other page already existed when I created this one. The other page has the more complete name, so I'd like to propose merging this page's content into the other one and redirecting this page over there. Any objections/approvals/comments? Izogi 22:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi again. I didn't get any response to the above comment (from either article's discussion page), so I've just taken the initiative and merged them together. I hope nobody minds. I changed my mind and decided to keep the Wellington Botanic Gardens page, because that's what the Wellington City Council's web page appears to refer to it as. Izogi 03:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

There's only one garden

Despite this article reflecting common usage, the official term is 'Wellington Botanic Garden' (without the 's'). Even the web page used as a definitive source above uses this term…

Any objections to changing it?

Barefootguru 19:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. I guess you're right (if a little ... pedantic). Should we reflect official usage, or common usage? I don't have any major objections to changing it I guess. Ppe42 23:39, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

No objection from me, especially if it's the official name. Looking through those listed in [[Category:Botanical gardens]], there doesn't seem to be any established convention about whether to pluralise them or not. Izogi 06:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, will give people a few more days to respond and then rename the article, links to it, and any usage in the article and others I can find.

And yes, I know I'm a pedant ;-) I figure it helps Wikipedia achieve that encyclopaedic quality. Barefootguru 18:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The Magic Tree

Climbing the tree is not recommended, not because it is dangerous, but because it is killing the tree. According to the gardeners, if it continues to be damaged at the rate it is currently suffering, it will have to be removed in 5 years.

Improving this article for the 150th anniversary

As part of the New Zealand Wikipedian at Large project based at the Wellington City Archives, I'm trying to improve this article to coincide with the Garden's 150th anniversary in 2019. I'd be grateful for any help. So far I've gone through the Commons category, renaming and subcategorising files. Next we'll upload some historic pictures from the Archives. The article needs a rewrite, preferably referencing Winsome Shepherd's book on the Garden's history.

To Do

• Fix categories (done, all but plants – bulk recategorisation?)
• Add info from Heritage NZ listing
• Use Winsome Shepherd's book to generate rough article outline
• Have Ayla add no-known-copyright Botanic Gardens photos to the Flickr gallery under CC BY 4.0
• Locate Gardens photos by Neil Price
• Organise bulk upload of historic photos to Commons
• Choose better photos for the main article and make a better plant gallery
• Check Wikidata entry against a large overseas garden and improve accordingly

—Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 05:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Improvement project for this article

A group of Wellington Wikipedians have adopted this article for a joint project to improve it, hopefully to the level where it could be nominated for GA review.Marshelec (talk) 06:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Kew Gardens has headings for history, features, science, media and access, and Royal Botanic Garden, Sydney has history , trust (funding), description, heritage listing (including scientific value). Wellington's article could mention the duck pond, conservation, problems with kaka, Tulip Sunday, the playground. I have the Winsome Shepherd book so will make a start on this. Wainuiomartian (talk) 07:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The gift of the name Paekākā and the associated controversy is worth covering briefly.Marshelec (talk) 06:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Marshelec I've started, but happy to have help. I was thinking a section for notable trees and plants, conservation efforts, wildlife? Wainuiomartian (talk) 06:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

That sounds good. Not sure about how much wildlife to cover - it needs to be notable. One obvious candidate is kākā, and the damage they have done to exotic trees - there are definitely citations for that.,, Glow worms are also worth including. Might be worth mentioning the provision of bird-strike prevention on the windows of the cable car building . iNaturalist has a checklist for the gardens, but on its own, this is not sufficient, plus it is user-generated content. Still might be of some use as a prompt.. I will keep looking.Marshelec (talk) 07:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

This source says there were live music events in the gardens from 1910.done _Marshelec (talk) 07:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The areas of remnant lowland broadleaved native forest in the botanic garden, although no doubt much modified by human interference and pests etc, are still really important to our understanding of original forest and vegetation. Here are two sources: , and ._Marshelec (talk) 07:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Pinetum

I'm not sure how official it is, but as a closet pine nerd, there are at least 12-13 species of Pinus in the botanical garden, which may qualify it as a proper pinetum (i.e. a collection of pines, not just conifers), but I'm not sure if that's written down anywhere. Specimens include a magnificent Pinus torreyana, which occasionally sheds giant cones nearly as big as those from P. coulteri (of which I think there is also a specimen, somewhere up the top by the sculptures near Salamanca Road). From memory there are also specimens of P. bhutanica, P. canariensis, P. contorta, P. coulterii, P. edulis, P. mugo, P. patula, P. pinaster, P. pinea, P. montezumae, P. sylvestris and at least one P. roxburghii incorrectly identified as P. canariensis; the cones are the give-away, but immature trees are hard to tell apart; and possibly some others. There's the Ian McKean pinetum in Rangiwahia, one 50 km or so from Turangi that may or may not still be open to the public, and of course Eastwoodhill in Gisborne includes a pinetum. — Jon (talk) 02:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I've added a section on the James Hector Pinetum, though I'm thinking that special mature trees are scattered around the garden, not just in the pinetum?~~~ Wainuiomartian (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@Wainuiomartian ha, I'm not sure how I missed that! Jon (talk) 10:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jonathanischoice no, I just added it after you suggested it. Maybe it needs more detail. Wainuiomartian (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wellington Botanic Garden/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Wainuiomartian (talk · contribs) 22:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jonathanischoice (talk · contribs) 03:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Happy to review this, looks pretty good so far; I will probably not get much chance before this weekend, however. — Jon (talk) 03:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for reviewing the article. I've attended to most of the comments, and rewrote/expanded the first part of the history section. I could go through looking for alternatives to WCC articles (primary sources) but I believe they are all basic and non-controversial, and in the case of the management plan, relevant. Please let me know what else needs doing. Wainuiomartian (talk) 04:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@Wainuiomartian: I think this is meeting all the criteria, with only one point left, about the early British colonial gardens' connection with Kew. I don't have the history book to hand, but this paragraph in the Hector book on p. 78 seems relevant:

“During the 1870s and ’80s, the Wellington Botanic Garden’s connection with the Royal Botanic Garden at Kew made it part of a network of botanic gardens in British possessions around the world. This led to it becoming an active participant in the international exchange of plants, which became particularly intense during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. During Hector’s time the trade was not one way. Hector had become a personal friend of the Kew director, Joseph Hooker, after agreeing to host Hooker’s son when he came to New Zealand for the benefit of his health. Hooker subsequently took an interest in the development of the garden, advising Hector on how to use some of the difficult sites, suggesting plants to grow, and sending seed of rhododendrons from Sikkim. In addition, Hooker wrote about and sent sketches of the pinetum—a plantation of pine trees and other conifers—he was developing at Kew.”

Amusingly, there's also this quote on p. 71, “In 1866 Joseph Hooker, the director of B&W Gardens in London, wrote that he was ‘glad you [Hector] have started the museum at Wellington’ because ‘there is nothing like a museum and gardens to screw money out of the public for science’”! Thoughts? — Jon (talk) 02:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC) Jon (talk) 02:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Review criteria

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Good prose, conforms to specified NZ English.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	lead ok; watch words ok; layout ok; fiction n/a; lists n/a.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	References conform to layout guidelines.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	RS ok; coverage ok.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No original research, spot check ok.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	The Copyvio report returns 24% and matches are mostly proper nouns.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Coverage ok.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No over-detailed sections.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No evident controversial or biased content.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No evident current controversies or disputes.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are on Commons with appropriate licenses.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are good, relevant, with captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Comments

Book now in Wikidata.

Lead/introduction

• Too many ands at the end: The garden is managed by Wellington City Council, and features protected native forest, conifers, plant collections and seasonal displays and an extensive rose garden. Suggest: "...plant collections, seasonal displays, and an extensive rose garden." (I'm an Oxford comma fan, but MOS:OXFORD is optional. For GA, whichever list comma style is used needs to be used consistently throughout the article). fixed
• Plural acre unit used, It was later established as a botanic garden on a 5.3 ha (13 acres) site in 1868. When using units as an adjective, e.g. "a 3 metre (10 foot) pole" this is just a matter of using |adj=on with the {{convert}} template. fixed

History

• Watch word (criterion 1b) "however": However, the land was subsequently vested in the City of Wellington, with the passing of the Wellington Botanic Garden Vesting Act 1891. Suggest simply "The land was subsequently..." or re-wording e.g. "In 1891, with the passing of the act..." see MOS:EDITORIAL. It might also be worth mentioning here that clause 11 of the 1891 act set aside "no more than 6 acres" for the Governor to proclaim as Crown land for the observatory.  Done
• Watch word "but" (MOS:EDITORIAL): but returned some of it in 1847. Suggest "returning some of it in 1847." Are we sweeping the colonial treatment of Māori and land, etc. under a rug here? Is it worth expanding here how and why that happened? (I genuinely don't know, but I found a possible source.)
• There is no mention of the connection of early British colonial gardens with Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew as detailed in Shepherd & Cook's book, and alluded to in a published review of same. It could help provide context for the early history.  Done I added a sentence or two, since I did the legwork anyway 😀 Jon (talk)

Features

• The word "current" is not needed here: the current rose garden was then established from 1950 to 1953, see MOS:RELTIME. fixed. (It was there to distinguish it from a previous rose garden at the soundshell, but I agree, not needed)
• Not required for GA, but it would be cool to add what £300 in 1949 is worth now with the {{Inflation}} template, e.g. £300 (equivalent to $14,500 in 2026).  Done
• Use of "now" (MOS:RELTIME): Some of these species are now endangered in their natural habitats – suggest something non-relative, like "Some of these species [planted in 19th C.] subsequently became endangered in their natural habitats" or similar. fixed

Visitors and tourism

• Watch word (criterion 1b) "often": often rating in the top five visitor attractions Suggest expanding to use given ref examples, e.g. "rated in the top five attractions in the 2024 Lonely Planet guide" or similar. (It's also the fourth thing on Trip Advisor, but I'm not sure if they're a WP:RS?) See MOS:WHATPLACE. done

References

• Duplicate references:
  • Refs 12, 15, 46 to the Wellington Gardens page. changed the URLs so they point to different pages.
  • Refs 10, 25 to the Spinoff Gardens Magic article.
  • Refs 2, 74 to the New Zealand Garden Trust page. fixed.
• Use of WP:QUESTIONABLE sources:
  • Wellington City Council and Wellington Gardens websites are primary sources, which are only admissible when used to source basic, non-controversial factual information about the subject. To support the prose, ideally secondary (news) or tertiary sources can be used instead or as well.  Done The remaining WCC refs are only used for basic facts.
  • Wellington City Council press releases via Scoop (refs 57, 68) are primary sources and WP:NIS (non-independent). In context, providing non-controversial and easily verified information, this may not matter, see also WP:SKYBLUE.  Done Replaced 57 with a different source. 68 is backed up with another source.
  • Sandra's Garden (ref 32) is a personal WordPress blog. Per the WP:BLOGS guideline, these are usually ineligible but can be used in some situations, e.g. by considering the notability and expertise of the author in their field. Author is a journalist who has written a gardening column for a long time, but I have found other sources instead.
  • Masters theses (ref 14) are often ineligible due to lack of peer review.  Done This reference is only used for basic facts about garden features and assets.
• Dead links in refs 6, 14, 58,65. Refs 6 and 65 can be fixed by adding |url-status=dead; ref 14 is fixable using the Vic URL instead of using Core (which complains that the original was deleted); ref 58 can use this Archive URL.  Done Replaced ref 65 with a Stuff article instead of WCC item.
• Use of issuu: a published print journal article via issuu should have |via=Issuu field, not the work, website or publisher field. Ref 42 lacks the journal, issue and page details (The Botanic Gardiner, issue 53, p 60–65).  Done fixed I think?

Not required for GA, but while we're about it

• I added Wayback Internet Archive links to most refs using the IABot, although there are some that will need to be manually added. I will add those myself since I already have them noted.
• Refs 17, 22, 23, 33 that use the Wellington City Council's "Archives Online" site ought to have |publisher=Wellington City Council for clarity.
• NZ Tree Register links (refs 45, 55) ought to have specific titles from the tree identifier and/or species, e.g. |title=WTR/0372 Pinus pinea and |title=WTR/0379 Sequoiadendron giganteum
• New Zealand Herald article (ref 52) is missing author info: |first1=Vita |last1=Molyneux |first2=Nick |last2=James
• Birdwatching Guide (ref 50) should have |publisher=Wellington City Council
• Zealandia Kākā page (ref 51) should have |publisher=[[Zealandia (wildlife sanctuary)|Zealandia Te Māra a Tāne]]

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.