# Talk:New Zealand

@user:Turnagra Can you define what an island country is? It seems to be a one size fits all term that sounds good but in reality means nothing, except perhaps if used in its very literal sense, where an (one) island is a country. Where are sources to define it? An archipelago however is easily defined and I think more accurate. Look at the article on the Phillipines for example. The article about island countries does not use a source to define the term, making its meaning assumed original research. An example of ambiguity would be the Republic of Ireland. An island country or not? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Britannica calls New Zealand an island country.
Te Ara calls it an archipelago.
Oxford English dictionary defines an archipelago as "an extensive group of islands." I also cannot find a definition of "island country". ―Panamitsu (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
I think the difference is that archipelago is a geographical term, whereas "island country" is a more political one - and a fairly self-explanatory one at that. Your definition of island country is frankly absurd, and would exclude nearly every island country on earth, except for Nauru, Niue (which isn't even really a country), Barbados and Dominica by my count. If you want to be super technical you could call it an archipelagic state but the first sentence of that article is literally An archipelagic state is an island country that consists of one or more archipelagos. There isn't a single source outlining what specifically an island country is for much the same reason that we wouldn't need a reliable source to define what a "red car" is - it's blindingly obvious to anyone who understands what the words mean. If you're insistent on island country needing to be sourced (which, as an aside, goes against style guides since the lead generally isn't sourced), then I'm sure we can find dozens that describe New Zealand as an island country, some of which have already been provided. Turnagra (talk) 06:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
If it is defined by feel, the article shouldn't imply a strict definition by providing an area ranking among "island countries". (This ranking is also not in the body.) CMD (talk) 06:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Turnagra, Not at all absurd. NZ's political position is denoted by the word 'country' if you bother to read the whole sentence. What you are trying to say is the word 'island' is being used as an adjective to describe the word 'country' instead of part of the compound noun 'island country'. Well, there are two, maybe three, main islands, not one - to claim otherwise as you are doing is quite frankly absurd. The question at hand is how most accurately and in everyday English do we describe NZ? Both sentences are natural English but my one is more accurate by far. That other sentence about being the eighth largest is based on someone's opinion of someone's opinion so it should go. Now, look online to see how it is described by quality secondary sources. Overwhelmingly as an archipelago. I looked at how 'island country' is defined by a google search and came up with lots of wiki referenced blogs. I don't see whyt this is so difficult. About my reversal - I think you are confused My unsubstantiated change was correctly reversed so I added sources. The dispute I would think is you thought I was adding OR which I am not. Your sentence however is original research. You can dispute the quality of the sources but IMO not what they say.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger 8 Roger (talk • contribs) 07:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
A few points:
I did read the whole sentence, which was also different from the structure of literally any other article about a country.
I have no idea where you've got the idea that I'm claiming New Zealand is a single island from, that's literally the opposite of what I'm saying. My entire point was that an island country doesn't have to be a single island. Since you're looking for a definition, how about the Collins dictionary, which says that an island nation is a country that is entirely made up of one or more islands (emphasis mine).
Your most recent comment has completely changed your argument. Previously you're saying that there's no definition of an island nation (false, see above, and also come on), and therefore it's not suitable. Now you're saying that's now how New Zealand is described, which is a whole different conversation (but also untrue).
I'm confused about your definition of original research - by your logic, every other word on wikipedia would need a citation because patently obvious sentences apparently constitute original research. Do we need to cite that Abel Tasman counts as European as well as Dutch? What about that the waka which Polynesians used to get here were able to go across oceans?
I reverted your edit because I didn't think it was a suitable change, not just because it was unsourced. But regardless, if someone reverts your edit and you open a talk page discussion, you don't immediately add it back in. That's Wikipedia 101.
In terms of the actual edit, I don't think it's suitable to describe New Zealand as an archipelago. Other examples of island countries which are on archipelagos or similar countries open as such:
Indonesia, officially the Republic of Indonesia, is a country in Southeast Asia and Oceania...
The Philippines, officially the Republic of the Philippines, is an archipelagic country in Southeast Asia.
Japan is an island country in East Asia.
Australia, officially the Commonwealth of Australia, is a country comprising the mainland of the Australian continent, the island of Tasmania and numerous smaller islands.
There are several other examples, none of which have wording that aligned with your proposal. I included Australia because it helps exemplify the point I'm trying to make - just as Australia isn't described as being a continent, we shouldn't be describing New Zealand as an archipelago. New Zealand might be on an archipelago, but New Zealand itself is first and foremost a country. Your wording is confusing, ambiguous, and out of step with literally every other country article on wikipedia, and as such is thoroughly unsuitable to be the opening sentence of the article.
Now, we could use the term archipelagic state, which thankfully is defined by the Article 46 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea as a State constituted wholly by one or more archipelagos and may include other islands (which I hope you'd agree is pretty unambiguously suited to New Zealand). The only issue with this is that New Zealand hasn't formally claimed that status under the convention, so it could be misleading. Either way, we need to separate the political entity of New Zealand from the New Zealand archipelago, and your wording doesn't do that. Turnagra (talk) 08:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
As a New Zealander, I've never heard anyone from NZ refer to NZ as an 'archipelago'.  But the idea of being an 'Island Country' fits very well with the fact that NZ has two (or three) main islands. Murray Langton (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
My point which I thought was clear is that the term 'island country' is not defined properly - it can mean different things to different people. I know it rolls off the tounge easily and is in common use in English, but wikipedia English should be more precise. My sentence makes it clear we are talking about the state called NZ so we are not talking just about the geographical NZ. Your preference is also simply wrong - NZ is not a country that is an (ie one) island. And, please google scholar search 'new zealand is an archipelago' and be swamped with sources. Not being precise and using the term 'island country' leads to such meaningless sentences as '...is the 8th largest...'. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
"New Zealand is an island country" returns 167 results.
"New Zealand is an archipelago" returns 85 results. ―Panamitsu (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Incidentally, "New Zealand is an island nation" returns 310 results. Turnagra (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Much as the Lake District has more than one lake, or a mountain area can have more than one mountain, an island country does not need to only have a single island, Roger. I refer you to my earlier source of the Collins dictionary if you need to verify that.
As I have said before, calling New Zealand an archipelago is also wrong, as it omits the outlying islands which are separate from the main islands entirely. It also refers to the landmass, rather than the country that the article is about. Clunkily adding "the country of" at the start of the article does not fix this.  Turnagra (talk) 05:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Have gone ahead with stitching the existing sound file for the United States Navy Band's version of God Save the King, as found on the United Kingdom page, into the country infobox. Though I have bestowed it the Royal Anthem parameter, the explanatory note is still there for nuance.
Feel free to revert if unsuitable. Rebestalic[leave a message....] 11:08, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

The redirect New Zealand. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 22 § New Zealand. until a consensus is reached.  ArthananWarcraft (talk) 08:22, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

There is a discussion about the use of jail or gaol, with comments by experienced editors, indirectly relevant to NZ articles here (Most commonly used current variant). Put simply,  MOS:COMMONALITY overrides MOS:ENGVAR. That means that most of the maori words in English text used in articles about NZ, justified on the alleged grounds they are the words used in NZ English, should in fact not be used. This is because a far more commonly used word meaning the same thing is used in English variants collectively. For example, we should use the word 'European', not 'Pakeha' (unless the context specifically requires using 'Pakeha'). This does not depend on whether certain Maori words are in fact the primary words used in English in NZ.) This is all quite simple and is commonsense. I expect we can now put to rest this utterly wasteful use of time taken up by certain editors keen to play their part in the politically, legally and artificially based promotion of Maori language and culture. Or, by those eager to pretend that English in NZ is somehow quite unique and different from English elsewhere. (That promotion of Maori language and culture is all well and good, but not on Wikipedia or at the expense of the English language)  Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok I don't have the energy to debate all of this so I will argue against one point: "by those eager to pretend that English in NZ is somehow quite unique and different from English elsewhere".
New Zealand English is in fact unique and different from English elsewhere. So is Australian English. And Indian English. Etc, etc. Linguists have a whole field of study, World Englishes, which explores this. Wikipedia has a policy whereby articles on a particular country's topic may use that country's variety of English for that article - so we don't have fruitless edit wars changing standardise to standardize and back all day. There are varieties of English, it is polite to use the appropriate variant on relevant Wikipedia pages, and it is really not hard to adjust.  TreeReader (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
I think this crusade of yours is rapidly approaching WP:RGW Roger. The use of these terms is widely accepted practice and any commonality issues can be resolved by linking or glossing first mentions, and I see no need to deviate further from that. Please just WP:DROPTHESTICK. Turnagra (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Well that was a ride and a half to read. Never mind that Māori words are actually in common use in New Zealand English, right? pcuser42 (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
I think the point of MOS:COMMONALITY is that national varieties of English do have unique words, which for the sake of comprehensibility should be substituted with common words with the same meaning if they exist in the variety and also other varieties, or otherwise glossed. -- Beland (talk) 02:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
I'm not bringing up a dead horse, Turnagra. I raised this point because I think the reasoning used in the jail vs gaol discussion applies to NZ but hasn't been raised before, that's all. If the reasoning is correct then it very clearly gives a firm reason why we should avoid all these maori words unless there is obvious reason to. The commonality reasoning has nothing to do with the politically generated agenda vs normal day-to-day use of these words in NZ. Although I disagree with Beland on the jail-gaol discussion, I agree with him here. The Reader editor is barking up the wrong tree, btw. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Wow. I had attempted to assume good faith but if you've decided I'm barking up the wrong tree I'll stop trying. (assuming you meant me by The Reader?? At least get my username right it's not as if it's in a foreign language which clearly you struggle with)
What are 'all these māori words' in articles you explicitly have a problem with? I honestly can't think of any kupu māori that have a clear English equivalent that I would use in a NZE wikipedia page. (I wouldn't say kupu instead of words if I was writing an article in NZE.)
Pākeha is not the equivalent of European any more. It means New-Zealander-of-mostly-european-heritage. Hey, Britain isn't in even in Europe any more!
Maybe words like tapu that are difficult to translate? They'd be glossed and italicised.
Words like marae and pōwhiri? Well, they're just in NZE now. And wouldn't turn up on pages out of a clear context.
Words like kiwi, tākahe, kākā? Also easy to understand in context, can be wikilinked, and don't even have english options.
Honestly you really are bringing up a dead horse under the guise of policy discussion. Please accept that Māori words might turn up on your screen and you're just going to have to cope. The reasoning in jail vs gaol appears to be more based on difficulties around a word's changing popularity, rather than whether or not they demonstrably exist in a variant of English. TreeReader (talk) 05:02, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Agree. Pākehā specifically refers to New Zealand Europeans to the exclusion of more recent European/white migrants. Statistics New Zealand usually mixes the two under the "European" ethnic group. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 07:31, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
You bring up topics similar to this every couple of months. You've previously cited a conspiracy magazine as you tried to state there was a hidden agenda to use Māori words and have previously complained about Māori being "rammed down people's throats" (I note in the latter link you also describe this area as a bit of a hobby-horse of yours, which only furthers my point). This isn't even counting the dozens of times you've tried to claim that Māori words are actually English words, or complained about macrons. Then there are the edit summaries where you go on about "so-called 'speakers'" of Māori, call Māori irrelevant to the colonisation of New Zealand or remove factual accounts of historical events as "agenda pushing". These are but a few examples of many which form a clear pattern of behaviour, and make it absolutely clear that it's well past the time for you to drop that stick as many have asked you to already. Turnagra (talk) 05:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Jail and gaol are not different words. They are different spellings of the same word. One is an archaic spelling now seldom seen and the other is the modern spelling. The spelling "jail" should be used in preference to the spelling "gaol" for the same reason that the spelling "Māori" should be used in preference to the spelling "Maori" - because this is today's Wikipedia, not the Wikipedia of the 1850s.
Your obsession with trying to suppress names and words derived from te reo Māori is becoming disruptive. Knock it off.
And the current renaissance of te reo Māori is anything but "politically, legally and artificially based promotion". it is happening despite of, not because of, Government actions (such as the attempt to force Government departments to abandon names derived from te reo Māori, or indeed the attempts to force local authorities to disenfranchise Māori voters). The English have a story about attempts to hold back the inevitable. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
I would happily discuss the points use raise Davosaurus, but reasoned discussion here amounts to disruptive behaviour according to some editors. One point though - rather than thinking of me as anti-foreign languages, please try to assume I'm pro-protecting the English language. It is the way Maori is being revitalised that is the problem, not the revitalisation itself. The two subjects are quite different. I suppose I'd better stop there for fear of being disruptive. Moving on, to all of you, please try to think about the commonality vs engvar problem, which is the point I have raised, rather than steering off course. When two words, yes words not spellings, mean the same, use the commoner across all variants of English combined. European = 99.99%; Pakeha = 0.01%. I arrest my case. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
This conversation should be about article text, not other editors. It might be helpful to focus on specific proposed changes to this page, if any. -- Beland (talk) 10:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Agreed. The gaol–jail discussion concern a specific use case, or closely related set of use cases, in a group of articles. Pākehā is used only once in this article where it is defined, wiki-linked, and italicized. European appears more than 30 times in the article body. There are likely articles where Māori and other NZE terms result in a net increase in understanding of the topic and others where such terms are over-used. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
The point here is simply MOS:COMMONALITY. It was ambiguous when it said if there are two words used in English, wikipedia preferred the one used more often. (This was raised in the gaol-jail discussion, but that discussion has other factors to consider which makes it not exactly the same as this NZ discussion.) The ambiguity in 'commonality' was whether it meant more often used in the pool of English everywhere, or only in one country. The conclusion was that it meant more often used in worldwide English. The argument against that was that MOS:ENGVAR should take precedence, meaning that different words meaning the same thing could be used in different articles. That is why I raised the subject here because many nz articles use words from the maori language to mean something for which English has a word meaning the same and which is overwhelmingly more recognisable worldwide. I used European-pakeha as an example but there are many more. This use of maori words raises many other areas of discussion that do not apply to this commonality issue so we should not confuse the issue by raising those other areas of discussion here. An example of another area of discussion is that pakeha is linked, so any reader not knowing what it means can simply click and find out - that is not the point and does not address the commonality issue. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:04, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
According to Wiktionary, "wikt:Pakeha" has been incorporated into the English language; "pākehā" is a word in the Maori language. I'm not aware of any Maori-specific manual of style; I would assume we should use the English spelling except when talking about the Maori origin of the word, or quoting text written in Maori?
It is, however, a term limited to New Zealand English, so according to MOS:COMMONALITY it does need to be either replaced or glossed and not merely linked. There's no single English word that means "ethically European people living in New Zealand", and apparently it can also refer to non-European New Zealanders who are not Maori. Maybe changing it to "European" or "white" (if the "New Zealand" part is clear from context) is smoother than explaining it, but "white" is sort of fuzzy and "European" could be confused to mean "people born in Europe" vs. having European ancestry. Explaining the local terminology (especially if it's only used once in an article) can also have educational value for readers. Personally, I had never heard of this word, but I do find it interesting to compare it to terms other groups have for colonizers or outsiders in general. This choice is also not a matter of "protecting" the English language; Wikipedia is neutral on how the English language should or shouldn't change, though language change is inevitable and in this case it has already happened. Neutrality and respect for readers is also relevant; Pākehā#Attitudes to the term says that some people find it offensive or refuse to use that word to describe themselves. It might be the appropriate word to paraphrase an opinion e.g. from a Maori perspective that's meant to have that baggage attached, but I'm not sure it's the right one for Wikipedia's own voice when describing facts?
Anyway, I leave the editorial choices up to subject-matter experts. Several articles are using "pakeha" without explaining it, and so are causing difficulty for readers outside New Zealand, so these need to be addressed either way (and linked):
George Grey and Henry Williams (missionary) (glossed as "gentlemen" which seems wrong?)
Native schools
Prior to 1800 in New Zealand
Kupe
Parihaka
Wairau Affray
Ngāti Te Wehi
Kūpapa
William Nicholas Searancke (second instance is unclear)
Kiwis Against Further Immigration
Edward Tregear (in a long and confusing quotation)
Russell Young (tennis)
Jacquie Sturm
Annette Sykes
Solway, New Zealand
William Fisher Pearson
Te Kani-a-Takirau
Infanticide in 19th-century New Zealand
-- Beland (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
That's an interesting list - many of those articles need some thorough clean-up! I don't think it's possible to group those all together as in need of editing around the one word - some of them are clear from context, whereas others are in need of rewording the entire sentences anyway. And some are just in quotations.
I doubt that using 'pakeha' in all of these articles is 'causing difficulty for readers outside NZ'! (I'd be (pleasantly) surprised if many people were reading them outside of NZ anyway). It's the low quality of many of those articles that would cause difficulties.  TreeReader (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Sure, using "pakeha" without explanation causes difficulty comprehending that small part of the article, for people who don't know the word, and is not the highest-quality writing. Where it appears in quotations, it should be explained in square brackets or after the quotations. -- Beland (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, Beland, for compiling the list. I agree these need to be looked at individually. I'm happy to take a closer look when I have more time. Racial and ethnic labels are highly context-specific and don't always 'translate' directly, as you point out. Pākehā may be the best choice in some articles, where it should definitely be glossed, whereas COMMONALITY likely favors more universal terminology in others. I took a quick look at Native Schools and while there are context clues to the meaning, this should (at least) be glossed on first use here and possibly when used in a quotation in a later section. There are other issues there. I don't want to get into the weeds about another article or group of articles on this talk page. Should this discussion be moved to WT:MOS or some other venue? --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 00:30, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Normally this sort of thing would be coordinated on a WikiProject page, I think. Or just go forth and do, and if there's any objection to a specific change maybe that article's talk page would be appropriate. -- Beland (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Change the link under Etymology labelled as "Dutch province" from linking to the Seventeen Provinces. This page refers to the Spanish Netherlands despite Zeeland (after which New Zealand is named) being a part of the Dutch Republic by 1581 - New Zealand was named in 1642/1645 for reference so there is no need for it to link to something which ceased to exist after 1581. Thanks. IsaacLeonChivers (talk) 12:44, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Not sure I'm understanding why you disagree with it being linked. This is the Etymology section, which is discussing the origin of the name. The fact that it ceased to exist should be irrelevant if it still influenced the naming. Nubzor [T][C] 14:41, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
IsaacLeonChivers has a point, referring to the province does seem to be anachronistic. The County of Zeeland might be more accurate, but this is not immediately obvious and should be checked properly. Quality sources should be used to confirm exactly what it was that Tasman used to name the islands, if indeed it was Tasman, or later chronologists. Whatever, a semi-protected request is the wrong way to approach this. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
I agree that the County of Zeeland is most logical here however this already exists in the same sentence, also don't have any sources to back up the pre-existing information. As for my approach, I'm new to Wikipedia, I saw a change which in my opinion needed fixing, I couldn't fix it so I requested an edit. IsaacLeonChivers (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps I wasn't clear in my response however the origin of "Zeeland" as the name of the Dutch county pre-exists the Spanish Netherlands too. From my perspective, it would make more sense to link Provinces of the Netherlands as that's how other pages (notably any page relating to a Dutch area) refer to this and from my perspective this is the least time-frame specific approach. In other words, there is no reason for the Spanish Netherlands provinces to be references as it's from an entirely separate and irrelevant time period and is thus out-of-place in this page. IsaacLeonChivers (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
You have confirmed what I meant by this not being immediately obvious. That period of European history is often confusing at first sight. I think you are saying NZ got its name from the region called Zeeland not from any specific administrative area called Zeeland. This is why we need good unambiguous sources. Everything on wikipedia must be confirmed by WP:RSSs. What they say is paramount, even if they are wrong. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
"The name was changed to Nova Zealandia the following year, Zealand being at the time the principal maritime state of the Dutch." [1] This reference addresses the source of the name, as the state of Zeeland, one of the States General of the Netherlands. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:31, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
A further quick look at various wiki sites and their sources suggests the word 'province' was a term used to describe the various units that existed at the time, whether they were formally duchies, counties or whatever. This included the time before the more formal joining together of these units. If so, that would mean calling Zeeland a 'province' in 1542-43 is not wrong. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm happy that Zeeland is a province and that that reference is fine however the issue is that the page links to the Seventeen Provinces which is another name given to the Spanish Netherlands (the Netherlands is made from the 12 provinces in the North whereas the other 5 refer to now Belgian provinces). Pretty much, the Seventeen Provinces was just the literal name of the country which existed under Spanish rule over the Netherlands until about 60 years before the naming of NZ - it doesn't refer to the literal 17 provinces. It also doesn't refer to Zeeland at the specified time because by 1581, the term 17 provinces was no longer relevant as Spain only owned 5 of the provinces following the Dutch revolt (this notably excluded Zeeland) which were administratively known as the Spanish Netherlands. I propose changing it to Provinces of the Netherlands as that this would refer to the modern provinces instead of an irrelevant historical nation. IsaacLeonChivers (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
I've changed the linked article to County of Zeeland. This might not be ideal either but should be better than the seventeen provinces. This paragraph could do with re-wording as well. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
At the risk of making this into commafuckery, technically speaking the county of Zeeland under the republic would have been referred to as a "gewest".
(This is, as far as I'm aware, mostly interchangeable with "province" as long as a province is understood to be a territory that has some degree of separate governance from, but is inferior to a greater (federation/colonial metropole) government.)
(If I had to guess, province is a romance word whereas gewest is germanic. Province is a French/Spanish word AFAIK and it was under the French reign (early 1800s, so well after the period relevant to this discussion) that these were actually briefly unified with the southern provinces again)
During the naming of Nieuw-Zeeland/Nova Zealandia/New Zealand, however, the "Seventeen Provinces" didn't exist anymore in any capacity.  Zeeland was indeed part of the republic (which is how dutch history casually refers to the Republic of (the) Seven United Netherlands. (not to be confused with the United Netherlandish (Belgian) States which was a short lived state in the remainder of the Spanish Netherlands (Belgica))
Anyhow, "gewest" is more accurate was my point if you are talking about the mid-sixteen-hundreds. (Also in general: the term was ALSO used under the Habsburg empire, predating any of this) County would be a bit inaccurate as this would not include "staats-vlaanderen" the part of Flanders annexed by the Republic in the war with Spain that would have still been part of the polity (I assume) New Zealand was named after. @ Roger, while "gewest" is often translated as "region" in English, this isn't always accurate. Especially in this context. It WAS more than just a historical name (for a place/region), as it would have been a major force in the Republic's navy. (The entities actually relevant in what would be the antipodean region to Zeeland)
I agree more with Isaac in this, but I don't fully agree with him either. (I won't touch this bit of the article without consent from you.)
--------------------------------
NB @ Isaac: the Spanish King owned/controlled ten of the provinces (well, gewesten, technically) not five. (these are now (mostly) the ten provinces of Belgium.) The Republic was seven(note that some of the previously counted for the 17, were now also counted together as one to get to seven,like county zutphen being counted as part of Duchy Gelre), not twelve (yet: some were split, expanded, taken back from the south after the kingdom was established under napoleonic rule etc.). A LOT of territories changed between lords/kings etc then. I know, this is all incredibly confusing. (but luckily also irrelevant)
Semantic lemma @ Roger : (Using (federal) state and gewest somewhat interchangeably isn't actually that strange, as the Republic was a confederation. (that the United States (USA) was also based on in some respects) These polities (gewesten) were (created/invented as) part of the HRE, which was, in a sense, later "reunified" as the German confederation. (today's federal republic of germany also has federal states. There are similarities between all of these (con)federations because of this feudal-->federal structure that they developed.)  The governance of Zeeland specifically was also somewhat internally federal. (feudal royalty (counts) from within the gewest made up its (e)states) )
----------------------------
Slomo666 (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
If you both agree though, can we set this request to answered? Slomo666 (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
@Roger 8 Roger - looking at your edit, wouldn't it make more sense for the link on "Zeeland" to point to the county of Zeeland, while the link on "Dutch Province" to continue pointing to whatever iteration of the Dutch provinces at a general level is most accurate for the time? Turnagra (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
I agree with this as I believe the specific time period isn't necessary considering it's referring more to the region, it just shouldn't be wrong. IsaacLeonChivers (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
There is a lot for me to unpack here however I will focus on the "gewest" at your request. From my understanding, the term province is used in accordance with Provinces of the Netherlands which from what I can understand is the modern reference to Dutch subdivisions. If the argument is that NZ is named after the place of Zeeland, it would make most sense to link to the page for provinces because this would negate the need for a timeframe. 'owever, if youuing that it is named after the IsaacLeonChivers (talk) 20:18, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
The end of what I was saying didn't update before I sent it. If you are implying that it is named after this more specific link relating to the navy and not just the region itself, the title 'province' should be changed and the link to the County of Zeeland should also be changed to something more accurate - also might need a source to support this as I'm not sure if this is becoming more opinion-based. This thread holds a lot more weight than I was expecting when opening it. IsaacLeonChivers (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. AlphaBetaGamma  (Talk/report any mistakes here)  03:46, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Taking a step back for a moment, this is all very interesting but it involves a lot of editorial opinion. Shouldn't we be concentrating on what good sources say, if any do in fact comment, on what was intended when the cartographer(s) named the islands nova zeelandia? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

The NZ cost of living article is one of the worst in the developed world. Why don't we have an article for it? Onewhitu89458 (talk) 09:40, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

The redirect New+Zealand has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 19 § New+Zealand until a consensus is reached.  ArthananWarcraft (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

The redirect New.Zealand has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 19 § New.Zealand until a consensus is reached.  ArthananWarcraft (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

The redirect New Zealand, has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 19 § New Zealand, until a consensus is reached.  ArthananWarcraft (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2025 (UTC)