Talk:New Zealand/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

| Archive 2 →

New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board (new 12 Nov 2004)

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)

Temperature

The winter temperature quoted for Wellington is too low. Correct figure is somewhere between 10C and 15C. It only seems like 5.9C, thanks to the constant wind and rain :-)

The 5.9 should have been minimum, not maximum. What you say about the constant wind and rain is exactly how I remember it: where I am now it's currently 0.5C and feels warm by comparison :-)

Maps

If anyone is interested, there are several public domain maps of NZ available at http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/australia.html Tannin

Name

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)

New Zealand stopped being called a Dominion with the adoption of the Statute of Westminster in 1947: Greg Stephens

Anniversary Days

Hi -- I've added the anniversary days of provincial districts plus Northland, Chathams and South Canterbury. I hope this helps, as I've had to cobble it from a variety of sources as barely anybody agrees. A pity. :( — Jonathan Ah Kit (22 July 2003, 4.14pm)

Mystery queen

This article claims that New Zealand has two queens, but doesn't explain and only lists one in the table. Can someone clarify? Tuf-Kat 03:26, Sep 16, 2003 (UTC)

There is Queen Elizabeth and there is Te Arikinui, Dame Te Atairangikaahu, the Maori Queen. Tiles 06:15, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Is the latter officially designated Co-Queen of New Zealand? If so, why isn't she in thetable? Tuf-Kat 06:26, Sep 16, 2003 (UTC)

It's a New Zealand thing. Some of us don't want any queen at all, others think one is enough while others reckon that if one queen is good then two must be even better. Official or not, Dame Atairangi is a queen in New Zealand. ping 07:29, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The Maori queen has no constitutional role but is highly respected and is regarded as a significant person in New Zealand due to her role as a representative of the Tainui tribe. Tainui is one of the main tribal groupings in Maoridom. Her title comes from an episode in the history of the Waikato region in New Zealand Tiles 08:04, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Largest City

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)

Fair enough. Mt Isa is probably the biggest city in the world, it is said to be bigger than Switzerland. They claim their main street is 250 km long. ping 09:25, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Fjords

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)

The word "fiord" now has a respectable lineage too; notes on appropriate pages. Robin Patterson 22:33, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Settlers --> indigenous

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)

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)

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)

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)

DON'T PANIC! (yet)

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)

Panic NOW!!

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)

Settlement date of NZ

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)

... or non-Maori settlers Crusadeonilliteracy

......The Celts have been suggested.ping 07:45, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Formatting of page needs attention

If I knew how to fix it I would. Can someone pls oblige. Moriori 03:11, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

Overview section (ie chapter 1 of saga that continues in August headed "Introduction")

I reworked and expanded the introduction, but it got too long, and pushed the table of statistics and table of contents too far down the article. A lot of the content I added was geographical in nature, but it seems like basic information that shouldn't be consigned to a section on geography half-way down the article. So I've added an Overview section that contains this kind of information: major islands, places, regions. It feels like a good position for it, and leads quite nicely into the history section that follows, i.e. "this is what NZ is like today; now this is how we got here".

There's now enough room in the introduction for a short paragraph that addresses "what NZ is known for". I suppose the "clean green" environment, independent foreign policy and the All Blacks could be touched on. Someone with a bit of flare for writing should attempt this because my attempts either read like lists or go on for paragraphs.

(oh and I forgot to log in when I made this change, just so you know who to blame)

Ben Arnold 00:52, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, I dunno - you leave it for 3 hours so I start a tidy-up and this anonymous bloke jumps in and tears the thing to pieces!!!! I recovered. Copied and pasted from my edit conflict window in two bites. Great work, Ben! (By the way "Wellington" doesn't need the extras any more.:Robin Patterson 01:04, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Great proof-reading. I couldn't decide if people should live on islands or in them. I think you're right "in" is common usage. I'm glad Wellington is just Wellington now. Someone should do the same thing to Dunedin. (Old word for Edinburgh indeed!)

Some of us live "in the North Island", some "in the South Island", but the minorities live "on" Stewart Island or Great Barrier Island or Waiheke Island (I think - I haven't asked my Waiheke cousin recently). Robin Patterson 08:15, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

National Anthems

God Save The Queen has equal status with God Defend New Zealand as a national anthem of New Zealand as according to the Ministry for Culture and Heritage. Just thought I'd point this out after someone removed it from the table of data --enceladus 08:19, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm not taking sides in this, but I'd point out that while God Save the Queen is officially of equal status, I don't believe that this is the case in practice. Personally, I've never once heard it sung as a New Zealand national anthem, and I suspect that most New Zealanders wouldn't even recognise it. I certainly wouldn't, if not for the fact that I've heard it elsewhere. I guess the argument is, therefore, whether de jure or de facto is more appropriate for the New Zealand statistics box. -- Vardion 09:40, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

New Zealand has two national anthems. Unless the anonymous person who keeps removing God Save The Queen is prepared to argue their case for removing it then other people will just re-add it. -- Popsracer 09:40, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've added a note to that is only shown in the edit page pointing to the Ministry of Cultural Heritage page stating that New Zealand does have two national anthems. --enceladus 21:18, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm a New Zealander and I've never even heard of God Save the Queen, its obviously not sung as our national anthem very often.

Technically yes, it is one of our national anthems. It was even played at Olympics medals ceremonies until about 1972, IIRC. In practice, however, I doubt that 1 in 100 Kiwis would know it was theirs (although almost all would recognise it as the British national anthem).[[User:Grutness|Grutness ^talk

]] 13:50, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

God Save the Queen is only played when her royal highness is in the country.--210.86.78.64 03:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Famous and Notable People

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)

It should not be on this page. The norm for country articles is for these lists to be kept as separate articles. The list could get too big and dominate the article. So I have removed it. -- Popsracer 05:27, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good work. Easier for us to link to, too Robin Patterson 06:43, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Introduction (chapter 2 of ongoing saga)

I've cut the following sentences from the introduction (including one I wrote) because they seemed to stray into extraneous detail. They might be relevant in a subsection somewhere, but in the introduction they just read like waffle.

When early Māori settlers approached New Zealand they saw a white cloud stretching across the horizon and sky.
The Treaty of Waitangi, signed in 1840, called it Nu Tirani.
Auckland, the City of White Sails, is also known as the "Polynesian Capital of the World".

I think the introduction is great from a geography perspective, but it needs another tightly written paragraph or two that touch broadly on New Zealand's history, culture, economy, politics, environment, possibly sports.

Ben Arnold 23:27, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the introduction is far too long. Compare it to the introduction for Australia - one succinct paragraph as opposed to four for New Zealand which is longer that half the articles at Wikipedia. Below is just the first couple of sentences of each paragraph which IMHO would look better.

New Zealand is a country formed of two major islands and a number of smaller islands in the southwestern Pacific Ocean. New Zealand's most common name in the indigenous Māori language is Aotearoa, which is popularly translated as the Land of the Long White Cloud. New Zealand is the most geographically isolated of all countries. Closest neighbour Australia is 2,000 km to the northwest of the main islands across the Tasman Sea. New Zealand has a broadly temperate climate and a varied and famously scenic landscape.

--enceladus 09:25, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I like that one - as long as the other material gets moved to suitable headed sections instead of being removed. Robin Patterson 12:46, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree - current intro far too long and some of it seriously does not belong there. I keep thinking I've come to the wrong page. I suggest the (popular) translation of Aotearoa be moved too and placed somewhere where there can be a discussion of how the Land of the Long White Cloud is the popular but embellished translation, the unembellished trans being Long White Cloud. Nurg 08:42, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

An article headed Aotearoa would be useful. I have a problem with the intro where it says"New Zealand's most common name in the indigenous Māori language is Aotearoa, which is popularly translated as the Land of the Long White Cloud'". Not so. It is a translation of a word which was concocted by pakeha from other Maori words, and is not a translation of an indigenous Maori word which existed when pakeha arrived. How/why pakeha invented the word Aotearoa is extremely well covered in Chapter 3 (The Great New Zealand Myth) of Michael King's book The Penguin History of New Zealand. It also explains why Maori accepted the word into their (evolving) language. Cheers. Moriori 23:04, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Moriori, I agree that sentence in the intro is unsatisfactory and there should be a fuller explanation somewhere, but technically it is correct. I think you have misread King. Aotearoa was not concocted by Pakeha. It already existed among some tribes as a word for the North Island and for Kupe's canoe. It was just the application of the word to the whole of NZ that occurred in Pakeha times. Nurg 07:17, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi Nurg. I must write out 1000 times "read what you have written before posting"! What I meant (but didn't communicate) was that pre European arrival the word Aotearoa was not the Maori name for NZ. The word was applied to the whole of NZ and popularised by European. Embellished, to use your word. Regardless, Maori who had never heard of the word, or had never used it even if they had heard it, began to use it . Moriori 23:43, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

I've decided to modify the top paragraph to:

For alternative meanings, see New Zealand (disambiguation).

New Zealand is a country formed of two major islands and a number of smaller islands in the southwestern Pacific Ocean. A common Maori name for New Zealand is Aotearoa, popularly translated as Land of the Long White Cloud. New Zealand also maintains responsibility for the foreign affairs of the self-governing countries of the Cook Islands and Niue, and administers the dependency of Tokelau.

The other stuff has been incorporated into the appropriate places --enceladus 02:45, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Kiwis

Is the New Zealand rugby league team called the Kiwis? I've lived here for over three years now, and have never heard it called that - I'm 99.999999% sure they're called the Vodafone Warriors. I've tried to change this on multiple changes, but it seems to always revert to the Kiwis.

Kiwis is correct. The Warriors play in the Oz NRL, same as The Blues play Super 12. The Kiwis, and All Blacks, are the national teams. Moriori 02:31, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

The coat of arms no longer appears in the various articles to which it is linked and the image seems to have disappeared. Anybody know why? Tiles 01:44, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Which linked articles Tiles? Seems to be working ok for me. Cheers. Moriori 02:27, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

At lunch time today it was missing from

New Zealand
Prime Minister of New Zealand
Governor-General of New Zealand
State sector organisations in New Zealand
Supreme Court of New Zealand
New Zealand elections
Minister of Foreign Affairs (New Zealand)
Speaker of the New Zealand House of Representatives
List of New Zealand politicians
List of national coats of arms
Template:Politics of New Zealand

But now it's back. Relief! Tiles 08:00, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Split off holidays and Timezone

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)

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)

Women's suffrage

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)

Infobox

Are there any objections to moving the information table to a separate template as has been done on the People's Republic of China article ie Template:New Zealand infobox. Its an easy way to cut back on the size of the article without removing info.--Evil Monkey 21:21, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Got no comments so I assumed no objections. The infobox is now found at Template:New Zealand infobox--Evil Monkey 06:51, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

External Links

Some of these external links are getting out of hand. What is "New Zealand Main Internet Forum" has anybody heard of this? The site has hardly any users judging by the few posts on the website. Seems like someone is trying to drive traffic to their web site. Onco p53 10:10, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Culled some sites just then, specifically:

Have to laugh that only one of these actually have .nz in their address. Don't feel TVNZ is appropriate as what about TV3, TV4, Sky, Prime and all the local channels.--Evil Monkey 06:50, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Footers

Noticed that there is now only Template:Pacific_Islands at the bottom of the page. The Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries#Footers states that there should generally only be footers for the region and any organisations that are countries character. Personally I don't think that includes the OECD template that was there for a while, though how about the Commonwealth template.--Evil Monkey 20:29, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Just removed two footers from the page today. Template:South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC) and Template:Pacific Islands Forum. It starts a bad precedent if we have a footer for every organisation that a country belongs to. For example in New Zealand case we would have a footer for ABEDA, ANZUS, APEC, ARF (dialogue partner), AsDB, ASEAN (dialogue partner), Australia Group, Commonwealth, CP, EBRD, ESCAP, FAO, IAEA, IBRD, ICAO, ICC, ICCt, ICFTU, ICRM, IDA, IEA, IFAD, IFC, IFRCS, IHO, ILO, IMF, IMO, Interpol, IOC, IOM (observer), ISO, ITU, NAM (guest), NSG, OECD, OPCW, PCA, Sparteca, SPC, SPF, UN, UNAMSIL, UNCTAD, UNESCO, UNHCR, UNIDO, UNMIK, UNMISET, UNMOP, UNTSO, UPU, WCO, WFTU, WHO, WIPO, WMO, WTrO. (This is just a copy of the bit at the bottom of Foreign relations of New Zealand). Evil Monkey∴Hello 03:46, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Aotearoa

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)

Coat of Arms again

There's now an article Coat of Arms of New Zealand, but I haven't worked out how to link to it from the template box. There also seems to be a problem with the image, though that's probably just a MW1.4 teething problem. We could probably do with a larger image of it if anyone has one... Grutness|^hello? 06:26, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Got a bigger version from the Ministry of Cultural Heritage. I uploaded it over the top of the old image so there may be some problems with articles using the image but I pretty sure most of those have a width set in the markup. Evil Monkey → Talk 09:44, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Mexicans in New Zealand

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)

Independence

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)

I've been working on a list of dates when New Zealand could claimed to have become independent for my own interest. Dominion Day is actually the most elusive. Although many sources on the internet claim that the day was the day New Zealand gained its "independence", no one seems to cite any legislation or letters patent that went along with the change in title. It's possible that this "independence" is an invention from a historial perspective. My impression is that being a Dominion came to mean being independent, as a result of the Statute of Westminster which applied to all Dominions. Prior to the Statute of Westminster, Dominions had less independence in theory than the Cook Islands or Niue have now.

A list of possible dates:

Dominion Day (26 September 1907)
Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 (UK) coming into effect (maybe 13 May 1927) Wikipedia says that this act split the crown among the several Dominions, although the act doesn't seem to say that
Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1947 coming into effect (maybe 25 November 1947)
New Zealand Constitution Amendment Act 1947 (UK) coming into effect (allowed New Zealand to modify the constitution it acts under, prior to this NZ would have had to ask the UK to make constitutional changes)
Constitution Act 1986, removed the ability for the UK to legislate for New Zealand at all

By the way I'm not a lawyer, so take this all with a grain of salt.

Ben Arnold 05:50, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fujisan

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)

Regarding ' Independance ' Day . The real question is on what day the Polity of NZ ceased to be subject to the jurisdiction of any other Polity .

Being granted more autonomy does not mean you are Independant . The Statute of Westminster 1931 formalised Dominion status ( note big D ) .

The official definition of Dominion status ( see Imperial Conference 1926 ) very carefully defined the Dominions as " autonomous Communities within the British Empire " . The British Nationality and Citizenship Act ( NZ )1948 clearly specified that all NZ citizens were members of the British Nation not the New Zealand 'Nation' .

As far as I can find NZ has never declared itself to be a Sovereign Nation ! But is so by implication (?) The Constitution Act terminated British Law applying in NZ . But NZ law could be appealed to the British Privy Council until 2004

The day that occured is NZ 's true National Day !

PS The fact that 'British Laws' prior to the Constitution Act still apply in NZ does'nt mean NZ is subject to Bitish Law those laws were 'Patriated'into NZ Law and became NZ Law .

The British Monarch as 'Queen of NZ' is simply a 'personal union ', and as a Constitutional Monarch must act on the 'Advice' of NZ Ministers and therefore cannot effect NZ Law . - NZ is Sovereign and a Nation .

Jon Lee

Written constitution

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)

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)

It maybe a reference to MMP, but that is a long shot at best. But it is not technically correct that the constitution is not written; it is, just not in a unified, codified sense. prehaps changing it to "there is no codified, unified constitution" would be better? --130.195.86.36 00:27, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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)

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

WikiNews

Given that many Kiwis are editing this page and are at this discussion, I invite people to take part in WikiNews to create NZ news stories there.

Commonwealth Realms template?

How do people feel about having this here? I think it duplicates the Commonwealth of Nations one too much. SimonLyall 19:27, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Agree, in fact you could possibly argue that there is no real need for any of the template footers we have - they could be quite easily covered by a category which in my opinion is much better suited to the job. Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:02, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that both should go. People reading this article are unlikley to be looking for a list of Commonwealth members. - SimonP 02:48, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

demographics

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)

Cities on the map

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 {{Territorial Authorities of New Zealand}} 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)

Im unhappy with the Image:New Zealand map_2005.png in that it seems to have errors. Many of the towns are in the wrong place. Gore should be further south and a little more east. Timaru a touch north, Asburton inland, Kaikorora and Blenheim are wrong. Nelson and Motueka are in the wrong bays. Unless it's fixed ASAP I say revert. Perhaps revert to the old one now and then post a new version. SimonLyall 07:39, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Five Hundred

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)

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)

Re: Maps

I'd have to disagree with you, for the following reasons. a) Blenheim is New Zealand's largest wine producing region, very well known area. b) Kaikoura is the whaling destination of NZ. If you look at Map A and then look at the revision, you will notice the gaps between Christchurch and where Blenheim should be. My 2 cents.--Matt von Furrie 02:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't realised that Blenheim now has 30,000 people, so it's larger than I thought (I lived there more than 30 years ago). Still, what are the criteria you think should be used? From the above paragraph, you appear to be arguing for tourism / fame as one criterion, and filling in blank spaces on the map as another. I could (slightly reluctantly) accept the tourism / fame argument, but would like to see at least Queenstown and Rotorua, and perhaps Russell added on that basis, but I don't see Gore or Picton qualifying. Perhaps a "Map of tourist destinations in New Zealand" would be more appropriate for these places. This is a map on the Geography section of New Zealand, and I now see it's also on Geography of New Zealand.

I understand that you want to see more South Island towns on the map, but the reality is that there are far more cities in the North Island than in the South. I have absolutely no problem with Nelson being on the map, and Timaru and Blenheim are close enough (now that I realise Blenheim's population). Rotorua should also be included, and Wanganui, and Whangarei. As I said above, rather than pulling names of cities out of the air, I'd like to establish some objective criteria for what's suitable for going on the map and what's not.

I also have no objection to your populating the map in the South Island article. That map doesn't have to restrict itself to the same level of detail as the North Island map does.-gadfium 03:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives