Talk:Canterbury Region

message: ...the Canterbury Regional Council (trading as Environment Canterbury)...: to my ears, the word "trading" in this idiom means that it's only appropriate for an actual business. For a govt body, a non-profit, or a club, I wouldn't even consider using it but would stick to the more prosaic often calling itself "Environment Canterbury" or suchlike. Is use of this idiom for non-businesses common in New Zealand? Doops |  talk 07:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: idiom?

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Northland Region which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 22:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Canterbury, New Zealand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140524102811/http://www.stats.govt.nz/~/media/Statistics/Census/2013%20Census/profile-and-summary-reports/quickstats-culture-identity/tables.xls to http://www.stats.govt.nz/~/media/Statistics/Census/2013%20Census/profile-and-summary-reports/quickstats-culture-identity/tables.xls
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140524102811/http://www.stats.govt.nz/~/media/Statistics/Census/2013%20Census/profile-and-summary-reports/quickstats-culture-identity/tables.xls to http://www.stats.govt.nz/~/media/Statistics/Census/2013%20Census/profile-and-summary-reports/quickstats-culture-identity/tables.xls
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I propose that Pūkio Stream, Kānuka Hills and Tawhai Hill should be merged into the geography section of this article. They are not independently notable features, and their shared claim to notability arises from a common aspect that could be discussed in this section without needless repetition elsewhere. bd2412 T 22:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose merge via this process I do not think that this is the appropriate venue. I think a full WP:AFD consideration should be held. Merge is a possible outcome. I think at AFD, the topic might be, deleted, merged, redirected or kept after being determined to be incompletely researched, resulting in an expansion. I don't think all possibilities will get fair consideration here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

text: Oppose merge via this process as per TonyTheTiger. I've certainly seen the underlying issue discussed over some length of time in the news media, so wouldn't be convinced without a further look that these really do not meet GNG. Schwede66 22:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Doesn't the issue as discussed in the media apply to these places collectively, as opposed to individually? bd2412 T 22:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's dealt with here by the government as one issue. SarahSV (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

text: I think that it is quite reasonable to merge the hills. bd2412 T 04:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Otago which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 00:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: I was very surprised to see that moa hunters are described as being distinct from Maori. As far as I'm aware the moa hunter hypothesis was a racist colonial idea that hasn't been acceptable in the scientific community for decades. I'm an ecologist so not informed enough to make any edits but was quite shocked to see it mentioned and hope someone with deeper historical knowledge amends this. 119.224.87.61 (talk) 09:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally don't interpret the passage as saying that they are distinct, but if we both have two different interpretations then it's obvious that the section needs work. I don't know much about the subject myself so am unable to improve it. —Panamitsu (talk) 10:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moa hunters? 

message: The content about the 2010-2011 earthquakes in this article seems overly long. Given that there are separate articles covering the earthquakes in detail, it seems to me that the content in this regional article is unbalanced and should be substantially reduced. Ideally, the topic would only be covered with a region-wide perspective, giving overall economic, social and related impacts, and with the benefit of more than 10 years post-event._Marshelec (talk) 07:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. The quakes affected Christchurch, esp central south and east, and up to the Waimak area, with generally only minor damage inland. Most of Canterbury was not affected. You then had the 2016 Kaikoura quake that similarly only affected that region. The effects on those areas and the population was highly significant though, far too much detail for this article. It also involves the insurance/EQC fiasco. I think one subsection summarising the earthquake sequence is all that is needed. I would put Kaikoura into that section too even if it was not directly connected with the original 2010 quake. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Should be trimmed and summarized better. Alexeyevitch(talk) 10:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

text: I've removed quite a bit of the excessive detail and I think it looks better now. I'd suggest adding a bit of detail about the amount of buildings that had to be repaired or demolished. 📊Panamitsu (talk) 04:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content about the 2010-2011 earthquakes