Talk:Timeline of New Zealand history

message: I've grabbed the initial data from this: Statistics NZ page , which is under   this copyright .
The stats NZ stuff is just intended is a rough pointer, I hope to get rid of 90% of their material pretty quickly. SimonLyall 10:24, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: So no worries yet?? Robin Patterson 10:03, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  No worries then SimonLyall 10:51, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments lacking heading

message: I've been thinking about this page a bit tonight. All the entries from 1870 onwards (and much before that) are just cut and paste from the Stats NZ page. I'd like to suggest deleting all the content after 1870 (except headings) and starting again. 
We can use the StatsNZ page are a reference for each year but basicly create new content as we go. At this stage of things it won't lose us much and avoid copyright worries. Entries before 1870 can be reworked as we go. Thoughts? 
SimonLyall 11:29, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idea - start this again 

message: Mixed at present. Shortest is "xx xx born/dies" - but "Birth of" may be the form in which we copy from elsewhere, so saving time? Robin Patterson 03:33, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Birth and death

message: If people are looking for something to do I've started copying in results of All Black matches into years. See 2004 in New Zealand . Just start at the page and click on old matches to fill in a year. Each match can be clocked on to get more details. IF peopel have a similar link for Cricket or other sports please post them. SimonLyall 20:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  All Black Matches 

message: In 1941, it mentions that Ian Mune was born (I don't know whom this is). However, many Maoris were killed in the Battle of Crete in that year. Also, the Battle of Cassino 1944, where the Maoris took a big part is also not mentioned. In addition Charles Upham won two VC's, which I would have thought rated a mention. I think the timeline is out of kilter, somehow. Wallie 19:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's wiki (and, in particular, that's lists on wiki). There's a lot of trivial stuff mixed up with the serious here. Needs a NZ editor (or somebody with a good knowledge of the country) to trim and refactor it. --kingboyk 14:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The less important events (births & deaths, etc) should probably be moved to the 19XX_in_New_Zealand pages. Some of this has already been done. - SimonLyall 20:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A quick Google will tell you who Ian Mune is you young whippersnapper  you! He is one of New Zealands first generation of television actors and has performed in a number of films, advertisments and stage productions. Trivial maybe today's dross - but tomorrows taonga of social commentary. Bottom line, if you see something is missing, addit. Wiki will tell us when the hard drives are full. L-Bit 13:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No no no!  This is supposed to show important and significant events in the history of NZ and is not a collection of "I think this person is great so he needs mentioning" or similar.  I've gone through and trimmed lots of it, which I hope goes in line with this.  violet/riga (t) 10:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I'm not in favour of the 'such and such person was born in this year' entries. They don't say anything about the state of NZ in that year, even if the person went on to become super famous. We should limit this to events which were significant in their own right. Having said that, I don't think 'A is on this list but B isn't, and B is obviously more important' is an argument for deleting A. It always irritates me when people write stuff along the lines of 'this page is crap, it doesn't have such and such'. Um... anyone can contribute so if you see a problem... fix it. --Helenalex 22:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think most of the born/died entries can be removed. Unless the birth or death of the person was an event in itself. Some other stuff needs to be cut down really the page should have more than an entry or two for each year on average. - SimonLyall 07:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't understand this 

message: Shall I set up a TOC for here as I did with Timeline of environmental history of New Zealand? Looks a bit nicer - in my opinion..... -- Alan Liefting talk 00:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The TOCright you added looks fairly good, especuially with the short early entries. - SimonLyall 10:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of Contents 

message: Dylan Naqova (talk) 03:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the events you are adding would be much more appropriate at 2010 in New Zealand and similar pages. I don't see other royal tours on this page, yet tours by the monarch are surely far more important than tours by the second in line to the throne. The redevelopment of a stadium does not appear to be of great significance other than, perhaps, to the city which contains it. The reintroduction of knighthoods is perhaps of more lasting significance and is suitable for this page.-gadfium 05:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should important dates be deleted? 

message: Just wondering why the article is written (mostly) in present tense?  I think it would read more naturally in the past tense. Tayste (edits) 06:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the convention for Timeline, Year and Year in Topic articles. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Years#Events.   (Talk Contribs) 06:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  That doesn't specify which to use, apart from giving examples written in present tense. Sounds strange to me, that's all. I guess it's a device to put the reader into that time period, as it were.  Tayste (edits) 08:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Present tense or past tense? 

message: This is a transient supurlative and its inclusion here looks more like a pro-Labour beat up (the unnecessary inclusion of Michael Cullen's name supports this) than an inherently notable entry. It belongs in 2006 in New Zealand but doesn't belong here unless other similar economic records are going to be included, and there is not enough room in the article for them all. Such biggest/most entries eventually become (out)dated and should be used sparingly (there are far too many of them in Year articles as it is).   (Talk Contribs) 09:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I doubt that anyone would want to see every previous record surplus included. Nor should we include every record GDP figure, or date of record population (which would be every year). We do include some dates when the population hits a round figure, though. Any such record which was achieved a very long time ago might be notable if it hasn't been beaten in modern times. We currently have three figures for record numbers of unemployed, but these are given as absolute numbers. I'm not sure if these are suitable. The unemployment rate in the 1930s may have been higher than at any time since as a proportion of the population (or of the working-age population), and if sourced that might be more appropriate. If the 1991 unemployment figure is a post-war high, then maybe that would be worth keeping too.-gadfium 10:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The surplus in 2006 

message: Flude's account of history is unreliable, extreme fringe and only online. Flude's account of events at Murderers Bay is largely fiction. There are versions of this event that say archaeologists "suggest" that Maori (Ngati Tumatakokiri) were defending a major agricultural area. Im not sure who these are supposed to be but it sounds  dubious. Any one visiting this lovely bay will be struck by the lack of flat land. Europeans who attempted to farm in the area failed, due to the naturally infertile granite based soils. The huge number of waka that Tasman saw(22) suggests a maritime based economy rather than one based on crops. Claudia  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The current entry in this article is concise and uses neutral language, what you added did not and the reference, as you have been told repeatedly, is no more reliable than that which is used here. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 22:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tasman section on Nz attributed to Flude. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Timeline of New Zealand history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100602110733/http://www.gns.cri.nz/what/earthact/volcanoes/nzvolcanoes/aucklandprint.htm to http://www.gns.cri.nz/what/earthact/volcanoes/nzvolcanoes/aucklandprint.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This could have been misconstrued as ALL land confiscated which is  inaccurate. In all 4% of NZ's land was confiscated from Maori who started or joined in the 1860s' insurrection  but with a change in government 6 months after the Waikato war ended in 1864 roughly half of this land was returned -most  to kupapa tribes but even to tribes who had been in rebellion. Those rebels who surrendered were treated more kindly than those who continued to make trouble. Perhaps understandably the tribes who were in the initial insurrection,then continued to oppose the government by joining either the Te Kooti insurrection or the Hau hau rebellion had more land confiscated, but even these tribes received back large reserves of land. In one well known case an iwi, on getting back its land then sold it to the government who incorporated it in a state forest(it was what kiwis call "bush"-heavily forested hill country.) Iwi by the 1870s and 1880s no longer needed this sort of land (for timber for waka or pa) as they were no longer hunter-gatherers but got income from subsistence farming, fishing, some hunting and seasonal work on roads, making fences and shearing.115.188.178.77 (talk) 08:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it couldn't be misconstrued as "ALL the land was confiscated", except buy someone with very poor grasp of the English language. The rest of your argument is, as usual, irrelevant. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with DerbyCountyinNZ. The only phrasing that could be construed that way is "the land in the Waikato ..." or "all land in the ...". Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re land Confiscated 1864