Talk:Wellington Botanic Garden

New Zealand Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

~~The gift of the name Paekākā and the associated controversy is worth covering briefly.~~[1]Marshelec

(talk) 06:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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.[2],[3],[4] Glow worms are also worth including.[5] Might be worth mentioning the provision of bird-strike prevention on the windows of the cable car building [6]. 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.[7]. I will keep looking.Marshelec (talk) 07:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~This source says there were live music events in the gardens from 1910.~~done [8]_Marshelec (talk) 07:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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: [9], and [10]._Marshelec (talk) 07:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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