Talk:New Zealand/Archive 1

message: I suggest we keep this link at top of page for reference.
There is a New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board. Discussions from this page on general NZ matters, rather than the NZ article itself, have been moved there, with a little reformatting. Nurg 08:12, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board (new 12 Nov 2004)

message: I could have sworn that New Zealand's official name is New Zealand nowadays, and hasn't been Dominion of New Zealand for quite some time, despite it popping up in really old official documents. But, I haven't been able to find the legislation or orders I thought I recalled giving effect to a change. Anyone got access to the ISO (3166?) countries list? – Jonathan Ah Kit
:Answer may be in the Constitution Act; I used to know what year that was. :Robin Patterson 10:30, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: I have removed the Largest City entry that was added to the table because it is not covered by the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries template.  Also it is ambiguous because it doesn't say largest by area or population or by some other measure. -- Popsracer 06:31, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Largest City

message: I wonder if someone with a better grasp of NZ geography than I might pop by fjord and check whether my characterisation of the location of fjords on NZ's west coast is correct and sufficient. Also, if there's a local name (in whatever language) for New Zealand's fjords, then I think that would make a handy addition over there too.  Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter 03:59, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Fjords

message: Under History the article says: "Polynesian settlers arrived probably some time between 500 and 1300 AD, and established the indigenous Maori culture."
I think I understand what this means but I also think it reads strangely. Presumably it refers to the culture now regarded as indegenous, but it seems to very odd concept for settlers to pop in and establish one! Maybe I am just being thick here - can someone advise and/or reword please? Nevilley 08:21, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I could be wrong, but I think that the sentence is intended to describe Maori culture as indigenous to New Zealand, rather than the Maori people themselves. That is, it's saying that Maori, while themselves settlers, developed a culture which is unique to New Zealand after they had arrived here. Or, alternatively, it could simply be using "indigenous" to mean "first" or "original" - while the Maori certainly arrived in New Zealand as settlers, their culture was the first one ever to be established here. (After all, just about every people must have been newcomers to their land at one stage, regardless of what story you accept about humanity's origins.) I agree, though, that the sentence could possibly be a little more clear. -- Vardion 09:08, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, I'll buy that explanation entirely, thanks. And yes too to the point about everything having had to start some time! It's just the particular awkwardness of that form of words that I thought might be worth avoiding. But I still can't think of a neat wording which clarifies it. :( Nevilley 09:15, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it's hard to find a good phrasing for it. Would "The first culture in New Zealand was that of the Maori, established by Polynesian settlers who arrived some time between 500 and 1300 AD." be any better, do you think? -- Vardion 07:05, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Settlers --> indigenous 

message: Sometime today (Saturday NZ time) I intend to create a disambiguation page for Kiwi, linking to
:* Kiwi (bird)
:* Kiwifruit (fruit)
:* Kiwis (people from New Zealand)
:* Kiwis (sporting team/s)
:* Kiwi (polish)
Will need a bit of tidying up of links I but  hope to get it all correct. I intend to move the current "Kiwi" page to a new one named "Kiwi (bird)" and then convert the current Kiwi page into the disambiguation page. Anyone have any objections or suggestions? Moriori 19:34, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)
:I wouldn't have any objections to that, no. There are quite a few links to the current Kiwi article (some referring to the bird, some not) which would need to be cleaned up, though. -- Vardion 07:08, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: DON'T PANIC! (yet)

message: Okay, I have made the suggested changes. Moved the existing "Kiwi" page to a new one called "Kiwi (bird)" and turned the old "Kiwi" into a disamig page. BUT,  I somehow managed to lose the old Kiwi Talk Page along the way.  H-e-l-p!  How do I fix?  Ta. Moriori 00:01, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
:The page doesn't appear in the deletion log, so I have no idea what happened to it. Perhaps it should be mentioned at the Villiage Pump? I vaguely recall someone mentioning something like this, and although I don't remember the specifics, there might be someone who has experienced this before. -- Vardion 07:42, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Panic NOW!!

message: The page states " Polynesian settlers arrived probably some time between 500 and 1300 AD". The evidence now seems to be that most tribes arrived around 1200 to 1300 AD. However one tribe (the Waitara I think) have twice as many generations in their ancestry since arriving in NZ. This was generally regarded as not correct until recent evidence showed that the bones of rats exist under deposits from the Taupo eruption which is considered to have happened 2000 years ago. Rats are credited with getting a lift here with Maori settlers. So there may be one group that came a very long time before the others.  RayTomes 11:07, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: ... or non-Maori settlers Crusadeonilliteracy
......The Celts have been suggested.ping 07:45, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Settlement date of NZ

message: Why is it even in the New Zealand page? There is another page called List of New Zealanders that is much more comprehesive.--enceladus 04:50, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Famous and Notable People

message: How do people feel about splitting off holidays and timezones into seperate article(s)? They current take up around 20% of the page. I'd be happy to split them off if peopel are in favour. I also means that stuff removed by edits in last few days can be put back. We can either leave a quick summary or just a pointer here. SimonLyall 02:50, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Probably do something similar to the other sections of the main article. Couple of paragraphs at the most for each.--enceladus 02:53, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split off holidays and Timezone 

message: we were the first to give women the vote could someone put that in
:as long as whoever does gets it right. We weren't. We were the first to give all adult women the right to vote in general elections. The Isle of Man and one American state (Kansas, IIRC) beat us as far as voting is concerned, but in both cases it was limited to local elections and/or land-owning women. [[User:Grutness|Grutness talk ] 23:12, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Women's suffrage

message: I was surprised that there was not a separate article on the term Aotearoa. There is now, but it's pretty rudimentary (mainly on possible translations). I'd appreciate it if someone who knows more could have a look at it. (I'm copying this message to the NZ noticeboard, too)  Grutness|hello?  07:03, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Aotearoa

message: Are there Mexicans in New Zealand?
:No doubt there are, but not particularly many. There is certainly no sizable and vocal Mexican community in the country.  Grutness|hello? 
::In the 2001 census there were 2,574 people in New Zealand who were born in the Americas but outside of the United States, Canada, Chile, Brazil and Peru. That's 0.07% of the population of New Zealand at the time, and only a fraction of that number would be from Mexico. I suspect a reasonable number would be from Commonwealth countries in the Carribean and Argentina as well. Ben Arnold 02:34, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mexicans in New Zealand 

message: There are a multiple number of dates in which New Zealand could be said to have reached its independence.  1907 was when New Zealand was given the status of a Dominion, but foreign affairs were still controlled by the Brits.  New Zealand became fully independent with the Adoption of the Statute of Westminster Act 1947.  But then it could also be argued that New Zealand became independent in 1986 with the Constitution Act which replaced the Constitution of New Zealand Act of 1952 by the British Parliament.  And it could be argued that New Zealand is still not independent as the Queen could, in theory, decree to rule New Zealand from London again.
Can this myraid of dates be included into the main article somehow?  --Gregstephens 07:52, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independence 

message: Fujiyama should read Fujisan
:I've changed it to Mount Fuji since this is the main title of the wikipedia article. - SimonLyall 19:31, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fujisan 

message: User:130.88.205.32 changed "There is no written constitution" to "The nation lacked a written constitution until 1996." 
What constitution would that be? —Christiaan 18:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't think of anything that would be considered a "constitution" that came into effect in 1996. The only major constitutional change that year would probably be the first use of the MMP electoral system. The user could be thinking of the Constitution Act of 19>8<6, but that isn't really a full constitution — it just modified and collated certain provisions. There are plenty of constitutional arrangements which are not part of the Constitution Act (and many things which aren't written down at all). I've reverted the change until there's some indication as to what the user means, anyway. -- Vardion 20:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree that parts of it are written, but there are also parts of it which aren't. For example, the existence of cabinet (certainly an important part of New Zealand's government) is not based on any written document (even if certain documents do refer to it). But your proposed wording is quite satisfactory. -- Vardion 07:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree - although exactly what the user meant by the 'written' constitution of 1996 remains unanswered. --Lholden 02:25, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Written constitution 

message: im guessing the person who wrote the demographics section isnt a mathematician. About 80% of the population is of European descent. Māori people are the second largest ethnic group (14.7%). Between the 1996 and 2001 censuses, the number of people of Asian origin (6.6%) overtook the number of people of Pacific Island origin (6.5%) (note that the census allowed multiple ethnic affiliations).
80+14.7+6.6+6.5=107.8
:Your're forgetting the last part of the passage you quote — "note that the census allowed multiple ethnic affiliations". Since the census allows people to be simultaneously counted as belonging to two ethnic groups, the totals won't equal 100%. -- Vardion 03:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  demographics 

message: The map of New Zealand with major cities shown in the geography section :Image:New Zealand map.PNG has been replaced by a version with several extra South Island towns and cities added: :Image:New Zealand map_2005.png. This includes a couple of quite small towns - Kaikoura and Picton, and even Blenheim seems rather too small to be included, in my opinion, but there are significantly larger cities in the North Island which it doesn't list. It also doesn't include Queenstown, which although it doesn't have a large population is one of the better known towns of New Zealand internationally. 
Rather than just change the map, I would like to ask what is a suitable criterion for a city or town to be included? One possibility is for a given population to qualify, perhaps 40,000. Another is to use the list of main centres in the overview section of this article (This would be my choice). Another is to use the centres listed in List of cities in New Zealand, or in the  template.
I don't like the idea of including smaller towns in less populated areas, and only larger cities in more populated ones.
Any comments?-gadfium 02:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cities on the map

message: I launched a very brief stub on Five Hundred yesterday hoping that someone who realy knows the game can turn it into a decent article.   ping 07:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Article on this game already exists, see 500 (card game) , I think you can probably get your article nominated for as speedy delete see Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion. SimonLyall 08:13, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Five Hundred

message: I propose the constitutional information for New Zealand be expanded upon in a article that describes the New Zealand constitution in all its complexities. This is the same as the Australian format. --Lholden 10:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Constitution article

message: I propose to move Cuisine of New Zealand to a new page named New Zealand cuisine to make it consistent with British cuisine  (oxymoron? :-), Indian cuisine, Chinese cuisine etc and to fix redirects such as at European cuisine for example). Anyone have objections? Moriori 20:16, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
:Since you made me laugh (British "cuisine" indeed), I have no objections. Cuisine of Australia was moved to Australian cuisine about a month ago. Generally, I favour the "Blah of Blah" article title, but it seems in this case "Blah cuisine" is standard (and more logical). I think Cuisine of the United States is one of the few still adhering to the older format.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 10:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed name change

message: The first sentence in this article reads so:
"New Zealand is an island state of the Australian Empire, in the south-western Pacific Ocean. The Australian state consists of two major islands and a number of smaller islands."
This I found somewhat confusing, as it gives the impression that New Zealand is an Australian state, or that Australia has an Empire. Although etymologically 'Australia' means southern land or something, this is not its common use. The above sentence, although technically correct, creates some confusion as to the independence of New Zealand and the role of Australia in both New Zealand and South Pacific politics. Any suggestions or comments?
:Vandalism. Fixed, Came from IP starting 150. Come to think of it......Moriori 01:19, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
:probably an Aussie, we've been planning a hostile takeover of new-zealand for some time now, please disregard it and go back to under-funding your military.... :)
:: A hostile aussie? As hostile as the powderpuffs who played ruggers last weekend (and were dorked!!!)? And, ahem, your "military"!!!  Is that the same military that will keep the invaders out when they decide they want to live In Vaucluse and swim among the turds in the world famous Bondi Beach? ):-   Moriori 07:38, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
:That's not a very nice thing to call Australian swimmers, Moriori... Grutness...wha? 05:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, now, children. Play nice...;-)--Cyberjunkie | Talk 08:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

text: gee, an NZer taking a stab at Aus, thats fresh :) Shrewd.user 04:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion 

message: Just to reply to Gadfium's edit summary question about Māori names, I don't think they should go in the lead section. As it is written we don't even have the English names of the two main islands in the lead sentence. Evil Monkey∴Hello 23:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Māori names 

message: isn't this v. badly worded?
"Among South Pacific nations, New Zealand has the largest and most industrialised economy and is second only to Papua New Guinea in population."
it seems to say that png is in the south pacific and that png's and nz's pops, and nz's economy, are bigger than aus's. --gizzago.
:I've removed the entire sentence as if we start saying PNG is a South Pacific nation, then Australia must certainly be one. Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: nz vs png

message: Removed scentence saying NZ was smaller than Japan and the British Isles and bigger than Colorado as don't think most people are to sure how big Colorado is and it's not really helpfull to say we're smaller than two things.  I replaced this with we're smaller than Japan and bigger than the United Kingdom. (+/- Republic of Ireland makes the difference with British Isles).  We're actually surprisingly a lot smaller than Japan - wonder if another country could be used instead - we're just a little smaller than Italy, (but not if you take out Sardinia, and most people probably instinctively would).  We're just a smidge smaller than Poland and the Phillipines but a completely inland country or a splatter of islands are probably not good comparisons either.  Any suggestions?. Fatuously, if you're feeling we're not big enough, we could always add the Ross Dependency and kick ar#$%&:-).  Incidentally, how on earth did we let this huge unclaimed bit of Antarctica right next to the Ross Dependency go unclaimed before signing the Antarctic treaty?  We could have got our selves in the top 5 Nya heh heh heh!!!! the size, the power...  scuse me while I go insane...
:Though I agree with the UK/British Isles business, I think the Colorado comparison should go back - state sizes are commonly used in the US for comparisons, and a lot of people would use them for comparisons. Japan's also a fairly well known size, certainly compared to any of the countries nearer in size. Also, Colorado is not just similar in size, but has a very similar population, so it's a useful comparison in that way, too. It's also a good idea to spread the comparisons around. If we're compared to the UK, then it's easy to work out where we'd be in terms of other European countries like Italy and Poland (mind you, the country nearest to us in size is Gabon, and I doubt anyone outside cetral Africa would have much fo a clue as to how big that was). As top Antarctica, I'va always wondered why no-one wanted that. perhaps there's a horrible dark secret down there... Grutness...wha? 00:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  nz size comparions 

message: If anyone cares, the term for a someone not descended from Maori is pakeha.  Trekphiler 16:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: not so trivial for those of us that live here. And yes, see pakeha. Or palagi, if you prefer!Grutness...wha? 23:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia