Talk:Cook Islands
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Click [show] for further details |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] History
I've added some basics to the History section, which was almost empty. I'll need to check a few other things, such as when the London Missionary Society arrived in Rarotonga, before adding anything else. This section also needs something on precolonial (and pre-Christian) history. Aridd 14:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Infobox
I created an infobox in the form of the Template:infobox country. There was some things that I could not find so I did not put it in this article. The regular editors of this article can decide to use it or not. It is availble for editing (if desired) at Template:Country infobox data Cook Islands. MJCdetroit 21:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The population figure for the Cook Islands is wrong. It is not 21,000, but about 13000
- 23-October-2006: Above-mentioned customized infobox appears to have been removed. -Wikid77 13:47, 23 October 2006
- 23-October-2006: NOTE "Infobox Country with obsolete params" had been caused by infobox parameter "leader_titles" which displayed correctly but caused Category "obsolete" in the bottom categories. In the 13:57 revision, I replaced "leader_titles" with infobox parameters: leader_title1, leader_name1, leader_title2, etc. -Wikid77 14:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Location
The South Pacific is a big place! Can someone who knows better edit the article to give readers a better idea of where the islands are in relation to more well-known places? (I'm guessing from the article that they're somewhat close to New Zealand?) Right now all the reader knows is that they are located in the southern part of the largest ocean on Earth, which doesn't help a whole lot! ;) -- Hux 09:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Currency
It states that the Cook Island Dollar can't be used elsewhere. What currency can?
- Some countries attempt to keep all money within it's borders by not allowing any of its currency to be exchanged in other countries (i.e. the Ugandan shilling). Maybe that's what it means. --PaxNobiscum 01:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dates
History of the Cook Islands says Cook visited there in 1770, but here it says 1773 and 1779. It also says he visited Raratonga in 1813, which is impossible. Adam Bishop 21:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- Fixed about a year ago.-gadfium 07:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
There is an inconsistency here. The text says "Another Spaniard, Pedro Fernández de Quirós, made the first recorded European landing in the islands when he set foot on Rakahanga in 1606", but later "The first recorded landing by Europeans was in 1814".
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.36.190 (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've reworded the second statement - 1606 was the first European landing on any island in the Cooks; 1814 was the first European landing on Rarotonga.-gadfium 07:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] .Co.Ck
Should it be mentioned that the Cook Islands feature the humourous website suffix of Co.ck? Also, does anybody know whether this hilarity was done on purpose, or was automatically assigned? ZeroG91 09:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Even if Cook Islanders have a great sense of humour and love word play, I do not think that it was done on purpose. Nevers
[edit] Proposed WikiProject
In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on Polynesia at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Polynesia whose scope would include Cook Islands. Any interested parties are more than welcome to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start such a project. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Policies
What is the difference in policies between Cook Islands Party and Democratic Party 217.39.26.57 20:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Request for comment: Is the Queen's Representative's residence an official residence of the monarch?
Editors of this article may wish to comment on the edits being made at Official residence, advancing the unusual view that the official residence of the Queen's Representative for the Cook Islands, and those of his equivalents in other jurisdictions, are "royal" residences (i.e. official residences of the monarch), and that this aspect (assuming for the moment that it exists) deserves mention in a list of official residences, alongside "vice-regal", the somewhat opaque term being substituted for "Queen's Representative" and the like, by the royalising editor.
(For your further information, the "royal" issue began in the "Canada" entry. Afterward, the same editor spread it to the entries on "Cook Islands" and a number of other countries. He did so in conjunction with his "general cleanup" of the article. The "cleanup" is also making the article worse in some other ways, in my opinion. You might wish to look at that, too, but those are separate, or at most indirectly related issues. I would not bother mentioning these tangentials, here, but in the cases where I have left them out, the royalising editor has placed a follow-up note saying that I've "...omitt[ed] the point that the ["royal"] edits ... are part of a broader cleanup..." (for an example of his full remarks, see this), obliging me to place another follow-up, alike to this parenthetical, to dispell the potential impression that I've been less than fully truthful about the situation. Sorry for this digression; I'd much rather have stayed focussed on the main issue.)
-- Lonewolf BC 23:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Navigational templates
I am concerned by the large number of templates this article is accumulating. While most of the templates are by default collapsed, and so don't take up much screen space, they add significantly to the page load times. The rendered text in this page is now about 140kb. Before the last two templates were added, it was 105 kb. Without any of these navigational templates, the article text would be 70 kb. That's quite a difference, and I can't see that there's enough value in the templates to justify the increase in size. Getting to related articles is what categories are for.
I'd be interested in feedback on which of the navigational templates are considered useful, and why.-gadfium 07:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I suppose the main reason is that they assist in the reader in finding related articles. If a place such as Cook Islands belongs in several classifications, and each of those classifications has its own navigational template, then the article should in principle include all those templates. That said, I understand your concern about the page size. I have not seen a general discussion on navigational templates and their uses, though perhaps one can be found. I'm at work at the moment, so don't have the time to search for such a discussion, but I'll be glad to participate any such discussion. Perhaps a new one should be started? Teemu Leisti 23:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- The main page dealing with navigational templates is Wikipedia:Navigational templates. My understanding is that the navigational templates should be small, and the items on them directly relevant to the main article. I can understand the value in having the {{Realm of New Zealand}} template here, but the {{Territories of the British Empire}} one doesn't seem sufficiently relevant. The {{Austronesian-speaking countries and territories}} also isn't very relevant - some languages are closely related, but others really aren't. I think {{Administrative divisions of New Zealand}} is somewhere in between - it shows the similar status of Cook Islands and Niue, but also topics which have no bearing on the Cook Islands at all. It would be better if this template used the Navbox framework so it was collapsed when shown with several other templates.-gadfium 01:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- I tried to find a way to make this template collapsed by default. The easiest way to do it would be to use the Navbox template, but I that template expects rows of simple links, and putting a table in it confuses whatever piece of software processes the template; i.e., it won't work. That's probably the reason whoever made the code I copied for my template did it that way, to contain more complex markup. I'll try asking for help somewhere. Teemu Leisti 03:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- The main page dealing with navigational templates is Wikipedia:Navigational templates. My understanding is that the navigational templates should be small, and the items on them directly relevant to the main article. I can understand the value in having the {{Realm of New Zealand}} template here, but the {{Territories of the British Empire}} one doesn't seem sufficiently relevant. The {{Austronesian-speaking countries and territories}} also isn't very relevant - some languages are closely related, but others really aren't. I think {{Administrative divisions of New Zealand}} is somewhere in between - it shows the similar status of Cook Islands and Niue, but also topics which have no bearing on the Cook Islands at all. It would be better if this template used the Navbox framework so it was collapsed when shown with several other templates.-gadfium 01:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
