Talk:New Zealand/Archive 5

message: Should NZs 2nd lowest corruption index be in the politics section?
:Such statistics go in the article International rankings of New Zealand, which is linked to from the "See also" section of this article. I don't think there's much value in duplicating them here, and the downside is that the two articles will get out of sync.-gadfium 01:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corruption 

message: How can there be no reference at all to Aoetera, what Maori call their New Zealand.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.23.14 (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See the second sentence of the article, and also the first paragraph of the "Etymology" section. We also have an article Aotearoa.-gadfium 08:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aoetera 

message: Sand flies are widespread and can negatively impact the hiking and camping experiences.125.237.143.155 (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Widespread? Don't know about that. Some parts of South Island maybe? Whatever, I'd prefer slopping on a bit of lotion to deter sandflies any day to constantly watching out for snakes, deadly poisonous spiders, bull ants and other bities, crocodiles, sharks, blue ring octopus, deadly jellyfish etc that our neighbours over the ditch have to avoid, plus their darling hordes of blowies that swarm around no matter where you are on a tramp. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sand flies 

message: http://www.newzealand.com/travel/media/press-releases/2008/11/tourismnews_newplymouthtopsliveablecommunities_pressrelease.cfm
I really only registered to bring this to someones attention, and I didn't want to edit the original article as I'm not exactly experienced when it comes to that. 
So basically, I'm hoping someone will add that to the New Zealand article at some point.
Vanilla Sky3267 (talk) 05:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already in the New Plymouth article. It wouldn't really fit in here, which is about the whole country, and is already rather long.-gadfium 06:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Plymouth named one of best places in the world to live. 

message: I find it surprising that no mention is made of the Declaration of Independence of New Zealand in 1835. In my opinion, it deserves a mention. Any thoughts?
Jtravers (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is mentioned at History of New Zealand, and in more specialised articles such as Independence of New Zealand. The History section of this article is reduced in length and detail because this article is an overview of the whole country. The section should be a summary of the History of New Zealand article. It covers the whole of New Zealand history in seven paragraphs, and three of these deal with the 19th century, which I think is adequate treatment.-gadfium 19:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Sidebar says 204th, list it links to says 201st. Might want to update that. 88.144.10.150 (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population Density 

message: It says the Maori are the indigenous people of New Zealand, but isn't it true that the Moriori were on at least the south island maybe at the same time, if not earlier before being driven towards Chatham Islands?
It's not like i'm trying to refute Maori history, i've lived here off and on in the last ten years and wanted to clarify if this was something that should or alreay has been in the article.XxReikoxX - The Visual Asia Geek (talk) 09:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That theory has been discredited for lack of evidence. Moriori are now beleived to have arrived directly, or to be descended from Ngai Tahu with whose dialect their language has similarities. - . dramatic (talk) 10:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, i'll look into that, that would be very helpful in learning about that. Thank you for pointing that out. --XxReikoxX - The Visual Asia Geek (talk) 08:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moriori? 

message: The Heritage Foundation is a notoriously pro-US/pro-capitalist slanted think tank. IMO the link should go, or at least be introduced with "The Hertiage Foundation asserts that..." Because "pro-life" and "pro-choice" groups are the best unbiased sources of information about abortion, am I right? 118.90.41.39 (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if it really needs to be in the lede, but the New Zealand economy is unusual because it has such an emphasis on free trade, and is relatively open to foreign investment. We could also or instead cite the World Bank, which said in 2005 that NZ was the most business-friendly country in the world, and in 2008 the second-most business-friendly country (taken from Economy of New Zealand, but I haven't actually checked the refs). It's not appropriate for the lede to go into whether these are good or bad policies. Would you like to suggest an alternative single-sentence plus ref to sum up the economy for the lede?-gadfium 23:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved it down to the Economy section for now. It might be better to use the World Bank ranking, as gadfium suggests, even down there. We do need a brief summary of the economy in the lead section, but that sentence just presented one viewpoint, and a fairly controversial one at that, so I saw no reason to wait for a replacement. -- Avenue (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously none of us have anything against mentioning the economy in principle, I was just referring to the authors of the source. World Bank sounds good. Making it more general, like "New Zealand is considered to be economically free by [source]" (how it is now) is ok. If appropriate sources can be found, mentioning moves towards the free market (agriculture reform, privatizations, etc) may still have a place at the top of the article. 118.90.41.39 (talk) 09:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic freedom in intro 

message: Does anybody else agree on changing the picture of John Key? I believe he looks really really high in this one. . .—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.155.125 (talk • contribs) 
:I agree that the picture isn't very good, but it's the best picture we have under a free license. If you have a better picture, which you took yourself, please upload it under a suitable license, preferably at Wikimedia Commons. You'll need to create an account there.-gadfium 22:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Key 

message: In the first paragraph the article menrtions New Zealand as liveable, after looking the word up on dictionary.com I figured out that the word is livable. But since the article is semi-protected I can not edit the mistake, just thought I'd tell anyone who can fix it.99.240.95.124 (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a feeling liveable is New Zealand English, as a quick google search shows a few news articles from New Zealand and only New Zealand containing the spelling "liveable" in the title. If i'm wrong, someone else will see this and change it anyway :) Thanks for your help. Matty (talk) 11:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I've just had a quick google and confirm Matty's findings. Note that this article is written in New Zealand English; and that even Merriam Webster give liveable as an alternative spelling.Daveosaurus (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Liveable is standard in NZ as far as I'm aware, too. FWIW, worldwide ghits for livable outnumber those for liveable by 4:1... from NZ websites the ratio's 3:1 the other way (that is, 75% of NZ sites tend to use liveable). Grutness...wha? 11:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  liveable 

message: Where did that name come from?, recently i found Zealand is a region of denmark, any connection?--88.212.96.96 (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See New_Zealand#Etymology. There's no connection to the region of Denmark.-gadfium 19:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm a New Zealander so I SHOULD know an deffinate answer on this - however I don't know the full details,  but I know for sure that.. whatever European person (may have been Abel Tasman) that discovered New Zealand (in a European sense) that it reminded them of somewhere in the world called "Zealand". It was most likely Denmark, but I forget. It's quite funny, I live in a place called Thames, named after the River Thames. (Oh, but yeah, that's of course why it's called "NEW Zealand").  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.222.217 (talk) 09:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zealand? 

message: The percentages for which religion people are affiliated with do not add up. I have looked exact at the census data, and calculated that about 6.2% did not respond. I think this should be included because then it can also be seen there is an overlap between people associated with "other" religions and Cristian religions.  Smithspa (talk) 07:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The ethnic figures that were in the infobox seem to be the CIA's attempt to shoehorn 2001 census figures into a racial classification (hence the multiracial bit). That's dubious in itself, and equating European with British is even more unusual. I've replaced them with figures from the Demography section. -- Avenue (talk) 08:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

text: The percentages add to more than 100% because many people identify with more than one ethnic group. I thought we had a note to that effect, but we didn't, so I've added it. -- Avenue (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Could you cite a reliable source which says many find it offensive? I think only a very small minority do so.-gadfium 08:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Many means a large number eg 1,000, 5,000, 1,000,000. It does not have to be a majority. This being the case the statement should be qualified similar to the Wiki Pakeha page.203.190.201.15 (talk) 03:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demography 

message: Some updating may be required in the "Local government and external territories" section of the New Zealand article, and related articles that fall into the category of "Administrative divisions of New Zealand", with the changes that shall be undergone regarding the governance structure of the Auckland Region.
Michaelwang1 (talk) 05:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auckland Council 

message: I've started work on Australasia (Australia and New Zealand) as quite amazingly an article about Australasia in its most common meaning of Australia and NZ was missing. There is already a page devoted to the bilateral relationship - Australia-New Zealand relations, but none which discusses our part of the world as a cultural/political/social/economic region, which clearly it is. Help on this would be greatly appreciated - maybe pages for continents or the EU could be used as a model for different sections.
--110.32.143.237 (talk) 09:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This new article is very clearly a point-of-view fork, since the entirety of its content can be dealt with (if not already) in the parent article 'Australasia' or in articles noted above; as such, I have redirected it to that article.  Bosonic dressing (talk) 12:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Australasia - as far as many New Zealanders are concerned - is often thought of as Australia and Papua New Guinea. Most New Zealanders would consider themselves primarily part of Oceania, not Australasia. Grutness...wha? 22:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australasia 

message: Can someone put in somewhere that we were the first country in the world to give women the vote?  I might be blind and unable to see it, as its 0030, but I can't find it.
Its an important part of our history.
:It is there, near the picture of Gustavus von Tempsky: "In 1893, the country became the first nation in the world to grant women the right to vote.". XLerate (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: I looked under sports in Wikapedia article for New Zealand and did not see a heading for fishing.  Sure would be nice if some info was included as to where the most famous streams and rivers for fishing are (particularly fly fishing) and their proximity to local towns or landmarks. Kaframer (talk) 02:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Why not add it? There are users who know a lot about New Zealand articles such as User:Gadfium and I bet could give good advice about which articles it might go in or whether it should be a separate article or an addition to the NZ article; why not ask this person?Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Our fishing expert is Geronimo20.-gadfium 03:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fishing in New Zealand 

message: Are the blue textures of these two flags the same or are they supposed to be different?  The blues of these two flags in Wikipedia are slightly different and I am not sure if this is correct or not.   Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag of New Zealand vs. Flag of Australia 

message: Hi there. The link for citation 16 is incorrect. It is currently: http://www.teara.govt.nz/NewZealanders/NewZealandPeoples/EuropeanDiscoveryOfNewZealand/3/enEuropean, but it should be http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/european-discovery-of-new-zealand, European Discovery of New Zealand. I would change it myself, but this article is locked. Thanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.203.102.114 (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replaced that citation with the following one, because that seemed more relevant to the sentence that was being supported. I've also updated the link, although the error message claims that Te Ara will put redirects in place to fix this sort of error soon. -- Avenue (talk) 06:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken link 

message: The Tino rangatiratanga Maori sovereignty flag has been added to the subject page however I can't find any reference to either [1] Tino rangatiratanga or [2] the Maori sovereignty flag in the History section. I *think* the related sentence is in paragraph 7 of the History sub-heading as "A Māori protest movement eventually developed, which criticised Eurocentrism and worked for more recognition of Māori culture and the Treaty of Waitangi, which they felt had not been fully honoured".
That sentence is subjective (by stating goals without a citation) and lacks references for "protest movement eventually developed", "criticised Eurocentrism" without citing the point(s) of criticism so I've added citation needed tags.
I've commented out the Tino rangatiratanga Maori sovereignty flag as an image as it is not directly cited by any part of the page.
--Sinesurfer 06:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maori sovereignty Flag 

message: "The indigenous Māori named New Zealand Aotearoa"  - The Aotearoa wikipedia page rightly questions and references the question of who actually started using the Aotearoa name for New Zealand.  I think this would be better changed to something like "The indigenous Māori language name for New Zealand is Aotearoa".  The page is protected and I can't change.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.90.127 (talk) 07:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a valid point. Any objections to the change?-gadfium 08:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree - the proposed wording is better. Grutness...wha? 09:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

text: I've changed it. Thanks for the suggestion.-gadfium 18:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be the modern name. It used to only be the North Island. 203.25.1.208 (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aotearoa 

message: A request for comment related to this article has been opened  here. Any thoughts are appreciated.Cptnono (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC: Infobox map 

message: It's now 2009. Does anyone have an update to this statement? Are the troops still in Afghanistan? sugarfish (talk) 14:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe so. I've updated the statement, and cited a source that seems to be updated regularly. -- Avenue (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  In 2008 New Zealand forces are still active in Afghanistan 

message: I added stuff about cricket with references but now I think there's too much emphasis on cricket (and possibly rugby too), perhaps these sections should be pared down a bit?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the cricket section could be pared down a bit. The paragraph on rugby deals with both rugby union and rugby league, giving them two sentences each. A similar amount on cricket would seem reasonable. I suggest you remove the material after "Blackcaps", and either remove or find a source for the unsourced sentence. Some of the rest of the paragraph could go into the Cricket in New Zealand article, although the sentence on the waterfront stadium is no longer relevant.-gadfium 19:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Pared cricket; got semi-good reference on cricket popularity (a govt tourism site; better than nothing); still not sure about cricket being #2 popular sport in NZ, but took off tag. Put in words about White Ferns = NZ womens' cricket team. Is it women's or womens'? Shouldn't have fallen asleep in English class.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's "Women's" BlueRobe (talk) 05:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Football (aka soccer) is more popular than rugby among young males in New Zealand. "The top five sports played in clubs by boys aged 5 to 17 are: 17% Soccer 16% Rugby union..." That link also provides a more comprehensive break-down of the participation rates among the various sports by New Zealanders. BlueRobe (talk) 05:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cricket 

message: Link 59 currently points to http://www.heritage.org/Index/country.cfm?id=NewZealand
The correct location is now
http://www.heritage.org/index/Country/NewZealand
Ydjager (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed link. Thanks for posting the new URL. – Liveste (talk • edits) 13:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken link 59 

message: ::Apparently it is a common mistake that the English Language is believed to be an official language of New Zealand, yet it is not, or so I have heard. Maori and Sign Language definitely are though. 111.69.243.51 (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Maori and NZSL have been declared official in their own separate acts of Parliament. English has not, but it is still considered an official language; see for example the second page of the explanatory note accompanying the New Zealand Sign Language Bill, which says that the bill does not affect the status of "New Zealand’s other 2 official languages, English and Maori". -- Avenue (talk) 07:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  English an offical language? 

message: I tried getting to the New Zealanders page after visiting Pakeha and got this. Scrolled down to demographics and noticed "New Zealanders of European descent are collectively known as Pākehā; this term generally refers to New Zealanders of European descent but some Māori use it to refer to all non-Māori New Zealanders.[74]"
The second part may be true, Maori use Pakeha like Japanese use Gaijin but New Zealanders of European descent known as Pakeha???! Read the flippin Wikipedia article. It's highly contentious. Some love it but a lot of 'us' ardently hate it. And as the article itself says, "... Pākehā are usually referred to simply as 'New Zealanders'". So minority groups have an ethnic prefix/suffix attached while the majority don't. I would fix this myself but the page is locked. Can someone with editing privileges actually correct/delete this. 118.208.121.198 (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The passage is correct The term is generally used to "refer to New Zealanders of European descent", that some don't like it doesn't make the statement less true. Please have a look at the talk page for the Pakeha article. You might also want to look at the "Neutral point of view" policy wikipedia has. - SimonLyall (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what 118.208... is objecting to is not the second part, but the unqualified statement that "New Zealanders of European descent are collectively known as Pākehā". I'm sure he or she would feel that this does not satisfy our NPOV policy. Perhaps we could collapse it down to something like "The term Pākehā is commonly used to refer to New Zealanders of European descent, although some Māori use it to refer to all non-Māori and non-Polynesian New Zealanders.[74]". This also corrects the apparent error about Pakeha referring to non-Maori Polynesians NZers, which I don't believe is supported by the cited source. --Avenue (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: While the term Pakeha may be well known in New Zealand, I disagree that it is commonly used. A better paragraph could read: "The (contentious) term Pākehā is used by some to refer to New Zealanders of European descent, or in some cases to all non-Māori and non-Polynesian New Zealanders.[74]" Iamtk421 (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the difficulty here is a disagreement about how contentious the term is, too, so I think stating this directly isn't appropriate. How about "The term Pākehā usually refers to New Zealanders of European descent, although some reject this appellation, and some Māori use it to refer to all non-Māori and non-Polynesian New Zealanders.[74]"? --Avenue (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  That sounds better to me. Iamtk421 (talk) 00:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I love the Star Wars reference BlueRobe (talk) 07:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've used this nickname in lots of places and you're the first to ever comment on it. Iamtk421 (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

text: As the latest suggestion has been here nearly two days with no one objecting, I've moved it into the article. --Avenue (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My two cents, but perhaps you could use the paragraph on Pakeha used here? Benner9 (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That paragraph is unsourced, with a citation needed tag attached. It also seems to need some previous mention of the "New Zealand European" term to make sense. Sorry, but I don't see it as an improvement on what we've got here. --Avenue (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pakeha Error! 

message: The photos of the Queen, Governor General and the PM are in their own table for some reason - on my monitor (widescreen) this causes the whole Government section to be set in from the right by 5 or 6cm. Is there a better way to display these photos that won't cause this? Looks pretty strange. Kahuroa (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing the table code previews fine for me, if for you also then I think it can be removed. It appears to have been introduced here, maybe a legacy system. XLerate (talk) 13:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've stripped off the table (before I saw Xlerate's reply) - is that any better? It works fine for me either way. --Avenue (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Displays properly now it's gone. Cheers. Kahuroa (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images in the Government section 

message: Guidelines for flying the national Māori flag
Introduction
Recently, Cabinet has noted that a preferred national Māori flag has been identified, and that it is intended to complement the New Zealand flag. Cabinet also noted that it is proposed that the flag will fly on certain buildings and structures and sites of national significance on Waitangi Day, and that government agencies may also fly  the flag at their discretion on Waitangi Day [CAB Min (09) 44/15 refers].   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 23dazed (talk • contribs) 21:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Note however that the reference given also states that the Tino Rangatiratanga flag "does not carry official status". Note also that the Tino Rangatiratanga flag is already depicted elsewhere in this article (and links are given to other relevant articles in its caption). Daveosaurus (talk) 10:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The New Zealand Flag 

message: This article is not an appropriate place to discuss the New Zealand prostitution laws in detail. It would be appropriate to have a sentence saying that the laws were liberalised, with the year and a link to the detailed article. No further detail is needed here. This could be part of a paragraph which deals with the social reforms of the first decade of this century, which would also mention civil unions, the Property Relations Act, and the repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act. None of these need arguments pro and con in this article, just the fact that they were passed and if necessary a brief explanation of what they mean.-gadfium 20:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good to me. We can move the rest off to the article dedicated to the topic. It always seemed to sit uncomfortably in the Economy section, but I'm not sure where the broader paragraph on recent social reforms should go; perhaps the History or Politics sections? --Avenue (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  As a business the Economy section is probably best for it, but I honestly don't think it warrants any more than a brief mention. The sort of in-depth content that has been added recently would probably be more appropriate in articles about the reform and about the topic in general. Incidentally the paragraph on fashion immediately following it doesn't seem particularly useful either. Daveosaurus (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prostitution 

message: Tonight, many edits by Special:Contributions/94.229.22.101 have been reversed. There seems to be a pattern:  
10:51, 8 July 2010 (diff | hist)  New Zealand 
10:42, 8 July 2010 (diff | hist)  New Zealand   ‎
10:38, 8 July 2010 (diff | hist)  New Zealand  ‎
10:37, 8 July 2010 (diff | hist)  New Zealand  ‎
10:34, 8 July 2010 (diff | hist)  New Zealand   ‎
10:32, 8 July 2010 (diff | hist)  New Zealand   ‎
10:31, 8 July 2010 (diff | hist)  New Zealand ‎
--wcrosbie, Melbourne, Australia 11:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  94.229.22.101 is a pest 

message: I'm an American (former Wikipedian) who visited New Zealand and wrote this article here: An American's perspective on New Zealand. It is my impressions based on a 5 week stay outside Auckland (a house-swap) and visits around the north island. The knol is public domain; feel free to use it in your articles on NZ if you wish; in addition, all my pictures (in my NZ knol) are public domain as well -- landscapes, Auckland, waterfalls, beaches, public parks, etc; feel free to use them in NZ-related articles if you wish. Generally, I think the WP article on NZ is excellent but what I didn't get about NZ (when studying NZ before visiting and working on NZ Wikipedia articles) is how hilly it is (difficult driving), also, how expensive it is in terms of relative prices (why car-swap house-swap arrangements are smart). But the big big finding was how friendly the people were -- I had dozens of conversations with many terrific open-minded and cosmopolitan-oriented people about all kinds of topics. And I think the big thing (my POV theory) is that people in NZ are there (in many times) because they want to be there, like they chose the excellent climate and were willing to put up with the distance & such & hilly geography. Stunning rainbows too. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems pretty fair. But that third pic down is definitely not a kauri tree, lol. They don't branch till wayyyy above ground Kahuroa (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I enjoyed your article.-gadfium 23:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Glad you liked the country so much. There were some NZ/US differences I wasn't aware of (I didn't realise it was that unusual to talk politics with friends and neighbours in the US!). But Kahuroa's right - that tree's looks more like a macrocarpa than a kauri. Next time you visit, you ought to go to the South Island :) Grutness...wha? 00:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Changed kouri --> macrocapra. You all have a wonderful country. Next time I'll try for the south island, definitely! And politics in the US is quite weird; there are even Wikipedians deleting the criticism section on the United States Congress article. (I'm so tired of the edit warring but am focusing on the knols.) What I'm saying is that if anybody needs pictures for the NZ-related Wikipedia articles, I have perhaps a hundred which I can give as public domain.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, that tree looks more like a pohutukawa than a macrocarpa to me, based on what I can see of the leaves and upper branches. But I'm no expert. Anyway thanks for the offer of the photos. --Avenue (talk) 04:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You could be right. Pohutukawa would make more sense for that part of the country, too. Grutness...wha? 07:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Leaves are definitely not macrocarpa or any other conifer. Could well be pohutukawa. And the biscuits the American teenager is holding are Squiggles Kahuroa (talk) 08:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yum - my favourites :) Grutness...wha? 09:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My kids and I LOVED Squiggles. Best cookie by far. We bought perhaps a package every couple of days or so. Deeeee-licious! Will change tree to pohutukawa. Whatever your tree is, I'll probably mispronounce it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gorgeous country 

message: I can't be bothered, but someone needs to study on the new film "Boy" and write something really Wikipedia-y on it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.250.251 (talk) 06:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See Boy (2010 film)-gadfium 06:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Zealand Film 

message: What about the rivalry between those two powerful nations ? New-Zealanders feel always superior than australians. This is not neutral. Check up.--Dogfish Jim and the Dixoap (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia vs N.Zealand 

message: To Jeff_G
Why is "mainland" removed as a legitimate name for the south island without a source? - are you even a new zealander? wikipedia guidelines say you do not need a verifiable reference to common knowlege subject that IS verifiable - ie mars is a planet.. this is easily verifiable  and the guide say to do this because otherwise the encylopedia  will become a rediculous and unreadible with so many references...this applies to the south Island being referred to as "the mainland"..... is is easily verifiable... you only need to quote and reference things that people do NOT know commonly......whats wrong with these nazi page editors? they don't even follow wiki's own guidelines....I suppose you need a reference to say that the name of the port of wellington is called port nicholson?
what source would you consider reliable as far as saying mainland was a legitimate name?
This applies also the name Zealand - it simply means "sea land" - you leave in a stupid comment WITHOUT documentation that says there is NO connection to the island or name Zealand and i provided an explanation with a common sense and easily refiable information (ie the pages on wikipedia describing both islands and provinces called by that name and you say there is a problem with what I wrote? - come on!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveswikiedits (talk • contribs) 04:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The South Island is certainly sometimes called the "mainland", and not only by its residents - for example, see . The name is mostly jocular, occasionally polemical. It's appropriate to mention it in South Island, as we do, but perhaps not so appropriate in this article. Similarly, we mention "Jafa" in the Auckland article, but not here.-gadfium 05:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  References needed for common sense items 

message: I have trimmed the government section under Politics. Namely removed the block quote and the detailed analysis of the 2008 Election. They belong in the main article if anywhere. Most of it was sourced from one site  (accessed 2009), which may be why it had such a strong focus on the 2008 election. Also added in more details about the FPP to MMP switch.  AIRcorn (talk) 13:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Added some information about 2008 back in. Prob good to talk about the current make-up of the government, even if it needs updating every three years. AIRcorn (talk) 05:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politics 

message: Recent edits make it seem as if the Anzus treaty has been revived by the Wellington Declaration and by instances of military cooperation. I thought Anzus was still dead. See PM's position as reported by Radio NZ in November. Kahuroa (talk) 10:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Reworded slightly using your above link. AIRcorn (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anzus treaty reword 

message: The Economics section needs some work, more than I have done to the other sections so far. I would like to remove large portions of it to its main article, reducing the history section and condensing some of the other sub-sections I just added. Will involve quite a bit of rewriting. AIRcorn (talk) 11:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: AIRcorn (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economics Section 

message: The article New Leinster Province is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Leinster Province until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion.  However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Such deletion discussions are included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/New Zealand. It is not necessary to advertise them here.-gadfium 23:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination of [[New Leinster Province]] for deletion 

message: Hey I came across this via Facebook -- check this out Catching a fish bare-handed in NZ. Perhaps there's a NZ fishing article where it might be appropriate?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cool fish catching in New Zealand 

message: I suggest removing Mormon/LDS from the list of major religions in New Zealand. According to the demographics found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_Zealand, There are more Buddhists, Hindus and even Jedi than there are Mormons. (Yes, JEDI—from the Star Wars movie) The two major endemic religions also outnumber Mormon. So why is mormon included in the list?
I have encountered several instances where Mormons have inflated the importance of their movement by little offhanded postings such as that. I recommend we stick to reality here on Wikipedia.
98.86.45.95 (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The text is referring to denominations of Christianity and after the five four mentioned (Anglicanism, Roman Catholicism, Presbyterianism and Methodism) Pentecostal (79,155), Baptist (56,913) and LDS (43,539) have the next most followers (see Table 28 from the 2006 census). It can be argued where to draw the line, but seeing as the numbers are similar for Buddhism (52,362), Hindu (64,392), Islam (36,072) and Ratana (50,565) and the next highest number is under half (Brethren at 19,617) it seems to be a good place. AIRcorn (talk) 02:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: :Needs a map. Not being from NZ (UK) I know where Auckland is and that's about it. A basic outline map would be very helpful.Angry Mustelid$nbsp;(talk) 2011/02/05-22:21 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.134.109 (talk)  
::We had a few, including :File:New Zealand towns and cities.jpg, but they're been cut back recently. There were probably too many before, but maybe the trimming went too far. I don't think the cityscapes in the "List of cities" box add much value, so I'll replace them with that map instead. --Avenue (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Map