Talk:Wellington

Non-bus use of bus tunnel

The following text was removed by an anonymous user: Another challenge is to find the Mount Victoria bus tunnel and drive through it, skillfully avoiding the buses. - This is an illegal (and dangerous) activity for cars, trucks and pedestrians as the tunnel is one lane and restricted to bus traffic only. Other traffic (and pedestrians) should travel via the larger, longer and more convenient Mount Victoria road tunnel. -- (WT-en) Huttite 18:59, 7 May 2004 (EDT)

Actually, driving through the bus tunnel isn't really dangerous - although it is probably illegal. There is a traffic light system that Buses use when they see another bus at the other end (otherwise the bus drivers tend to ignore it). Walking through it is more dangerous, although a lot of people do it. You can see approaching vehicles (look backwards too!) and there are holes in the tunnel at regular intervals. Bus drivers will sometimes stop and yell at you if they catch you walking through the tunnel.

All day bus pass

Can someone confirm the $1 all day city bus pass? That seems very wrong to me since 1 section (all through the city) cost $1 each time.

$5 per http://www.stagecoach.co.nz/wellington/scnz_serwtgfares.html. Updated cost. (WT-en) Barefootguru 13:14, 14 Dec 2005 (EST)

Bars

Does anyone find it strange that Blend is the only Bar that gets a particular mention? This bar is not even a particularly unique or interesting one. It seems as though someone might be plugging their own business. I'm not sure if that is O.k or not. I know this is only an opinion, but surely what should be included are bars of particular note not just any old bar in Wellington. Any comments?(WT-en) Guavafruit 17:10, 8 January 2007 (EST)

Please plunge forward and add more bar information! It would be very helpful. We need more bar listings for this interesting city. As for your questions: business owners are welcome to add listings for their own businesses (bars, hotels, restaurants, whatever) but we ask that people don't tout (using promotional language that sounds fake and advertising). Your edits would be very welcome here. --(WT-en) Evan 16:55, 8 January 2007 (EST)

Hi, I will endevour to do so. But dont you think that the culmunation of allowing Bars, cafes and restaurants etc to freely add their own businesses would be a complete list of the bars, cafes and restaurants in that city? As Wikivoyage increases in popularity (which i am sure it will) All bars will want to be there. It seems to me that as a travel guide, what is wanted is not a complete list but a list of bars distinctive, particularly popular, historical, or of some particular interest. One can get a complete list of bars in Wellington from the yellow pages, doesn't wikivoyage want to provide a more exclusive list?(WT-en) Guavafruit 17:10, 8 January 2007 (EST)

Well, it's a good point. Yes, we want to be selective for a travel guide. But we don't want to exclude any contributors. If someone adds their own bar, and it gets deleted, well... that's tough. --(WT-en) Evan 00:28, 9 January 2007 (EST)

---

Sorry can't figure this one out. can anyone tell me how to fix the bar section so that the bullet points are all in the same vertical position? A little new to this. Tried reading the instructions but could not find info on this.(WT-en) Guavafruit 18:19, 8 January 2007 (EST)

You have to put </drink> at the end of the listing. --(WT-en) Evan 00:28, 9 January 2007 (EST)

---

Removed Randy Watsons bar. I did this because I cannot find anything about it on the net nor have i heard of or can find on the net the location of (a Wellington based) ANZAC bridge. I think if it is so exclusive as the writer says that you had better know someone or you won't get in(which i imagine is exaggerated) there is no point directing travellers there as they will have little to no chance of ever going there. I live in Wellington (and have done my whole life) and with the information provided i could not begin to find this bar. If it is not as exclusive as the writer says and someone can provide more info it should be re-added. I'll try and find it myself aswell--(WT-en) Guavafruit 20:59, 22 January 2007 (EST)

Safety of hitchhiking

While 99.9999999999% of the time you are perfectly safe accepting a lift

This states, literally, that only one time out of every trillion lifts given in New Zealand, something goes bad. I understand this isn't meant literally, but I'm embarking on a personal crusade against this sort of facile hyperbole, because 99.9999% of the time it's entirely inaccurate. Any objections to my changing the wording a bit? - (WT-en) Wandering vagrant 04:45, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Definitely no objections, that quote is a little too silly, and please do plunge forward and improve the article. But do also keep in mind that Wikivoyage encourages lively writing. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 06:10, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Links

I see that a lot of links have been dumped straight into the text. No problem, but it is easier to read when the writer places [ and ] around the link so that it appears as a clickable link.

Eateries in Drink section

There seem to be quite a number of eating places in the Drink section (under Cafes). Shouldn't we move them? Nurg (talk) 09:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes.

But it still should be "Cafés". (See the inconsistent and linguistically challenged Italian coffee roaster's site http://www.laffare.co.nz/Article.aspx?ID=555 ) --118.93nzp (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Reorganising the Wellington articles

@Lcmortensen: has been districtifying the Wellington articles, which I think is ok. However, the scope of this article has been kinda changed from Wellington City to the "huge city" Wellington metro – with one of its districts being the "huge city" article itself, which is rather awkward. I suggest that its scope be reverted to what it was a few days ago, and it then be moved to a new title of Wellington/Wellington City. Then, a new "huge city" article can be created for the Wellington metro and placed at the name "Wellington" (which will have become a redirect in the meantime).

Also, we should probably scrap the Hutt Valley region article (after merging all useful content into appropriate articles), as we don't need a region article lying on a level between the huge city article and just two of the district articles. Nurg (talk) 10:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Nurg:. I was planning to move information to a new page Wellington/City for the city itself, but I ran out of time. That sound's a better way of doing it rather than trying to work with the existing article. I also agree there is no need for the Hutt Valley article, but it will be kept until such time when we can merge the useful content. Lcmortensen (talk) 10:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Slight change of plan - it's easier copying listings over from Wellington to Wellington/City then reformatting the existing article. I've started that process already. Lcmortensen (talk) 11:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Lcmortensen: Could you please explain the new structure for Wellington and Greater Wellington that you are working towards so that other do not do edits that counter acts this. At the moment I see articles that need fixing. Probably best to wait until you have finished the rework before stepping in but would be useful to understand the end goal. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Traveler100: Here's the plan - sorry that it wasn't obvious:

• Greater Wellington - the region governed by the GWRC.
  • Wellington - the four cities that make up the Wellington urban area
    • Wellington City
    • Porirua
    • Lower Hutt
    • Upper Hutt
  • Kapiti Coast – Kapiti Coast DC area
    • Otaki
    • Paekakariki
    • Paraparaumu
    • Waikanae
  • Wairarapa – Masterton DC, Carterton DC and South Wairarapa DC area, plus some of Tararua DC
    • • Masterton
      • Carterton
      • Martinborough

The Hutt Valley article will be deleted and info merged into Wellington, Lower Hutt or Upper Hutt as appropriate. Lcmortensen (talk) 04:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, now I see it. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Banner

The banner was unilaterally changed during June 2019 without discussion. I'm starting this discussion because I liked the old banner which screams Wellington to me, as opposed to any other city skyline. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Old banner, used prior to 2019

Current banner

• The old banner has more character for sure. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
• I prefer the old banner. I have been to Wellington several times, and have memories of the lagoon and walking along the harbour edge, which is shown in the old banner. As, Wellington is hilly, I have seen views of the city skyline, but usually from a little lower down than in the current banner. AlasdairW (talk) 22:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted the change given we're all in favour of the old banner. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)