Talk:New Zealand/Archive 2

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

| Archive 3 →

Ethnicities in introduction

Just a question, is it really neccessary to include this paragraph in the introduction of this article. Its just that I dont see why just having this information in a "People" section of the article would not be sufficient.

Is this really needed when introducing a country? For comparison, neither Australia nor the USA include such information there.DannyMan 05:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Constitution article

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)

Ranked area

According to List of countries by area, New Zealand is 73rd. Evil Monkey∴Hello 23:39, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Cool. Do you want to amend the page? I reverted it from 73th. Note the th instead of rd. Moriori 23:53, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the page. I had seen the change and looked at the list and decided it was alright -- not seeing the th instead of the rd :-) Evil Monkey∴Hello 23:56, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

"Average" minimum/maximum temperature

Hello. I was just reading the Geography section of the article, which says:

"In Wellington the average minimum temperature in winter is 5.9°C and the average maximum temperature in summer is 20.3°C."

Is there a source to confirm what's meant by "average minumum" and "average maximum" temperature? Maybe I'm being too nitpicky, but to me simply stating it doesn't seem very useful without also stating how it's been measured, and indicating whether the word "average" mean "mean", "median", or "mode" (most common). At worst it might be misleading depending on what's going through the mind of a reader, especially if they're not used to hearing about minimum and maximum temperatures every day as we do in New Zealand.

The article probably means the mean of daily min/max temperatures, but it could vary a lot if it's measured differently. eg. If someone only took the min/max temperatures every week, or every month, or every year, the "averages" would likely be much more extreme than if they were taken every day, or every hour, or every minute. Izogi 9 July 2005 09:53 (UTC)

questions

Should anyone mention the renaming of the national Badminton team as the Black Cocks? Some may see it as inappropriate but its probably the most original name in international sport. I do know its not official yet but alot of people are already saying things at matches like go the black cocks. It could be mentioned as a footnote or an interesting spin on the part about the naming convention for the national teams.
just a question to you knowledgable new zealanders, the article here was a little brief on why new zealand "lost interest in joining Australia in a federation" and also, the relationship between the two countries. i don't know about you but most people in Australia didn't know new zealand was almost an Australian state. I had put the question to a new zealender "would you like New Zealand to become a state of Australia" they we're quite adament that it remain independant, almost like such an event would mean the end of the world.
i also read (from another source) that new zealanders think Australians are "loud and opinionated" is this the general consensus in New Zealand? are you all (like my friend) adament that you be as distinct from Australia as possible?

Opinions vary on whether NZ should be closer to Australia. I think the clear majority quite strongly dislike the thought. It's most likely because Australia is so much more populous than NZ, and we'd lose our identity if we became a state.

I've looked for online opinion polls but could only find Australian ones, eg 1964 1968 1979. There was a three-part documentary series on TVNZ in 2003 entitled "2050 What If", dealing with different futures for NZ; one was effective merger with Australia, with the spectre of our children learning about aboriginal history rather than Maori culture in schools. The other scenarios were a Maori dominated NZ, and a Green dominated one.

These might be useful to you: States of Mind: Australia and New Zealand or Australia and New Zealand: Turning Shared Pasts into a shared history, or google for "Why New Zealanders are not Australians", a paper by Keith Sinclair which doesn't appear to be online, but is quoted by anything which is relevant.-gadfium 22:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

There's also a website entitled simply Why New Zealand did not become an Australian state. -- Vardion 23:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

reply: amazingly concise and well researched response to a fairly unworthy question :) i thank you. by i have to say, we don't learn about aboriginal history in schools, the odd book by an aboriginal has been studied, but were not as focused on aboriginals as New Zealand seem to be about the maori. I have to say, that a 'merger' would probably be pretty controversial in Australia too, i can see many economic benifits in being the one country, but perhaps CER will be enough.

one of the articles, that you linked me to, mentioned: "contemplation of, and public support for a new common currency" between Australia and New Zealand, this is the first i've heard of such a thing.

A related question, which someone here may be able to answer - I believe that when Australia federated, it wasn't just New Zealand that wasn't 100% behind the move. I've heard various sources claim that (1) WA only joined the confederation by a very slim majority, and (2) there was serious consideration given in Tasmania to joining with New Zealand. Anyone know whether there's any truth in either of these claims? Grutness...wha? 12:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Since time escapes me, I'll make this short and sweet (that's the saying right?). Yes, New Zealand was not alone in its hesitation. All the small colonies (that is, all bar NSW and VIC) at some point or another voiced serious concern of the potential dominance of NSW and VIC; this is the reason, in large part, we have a Senate (yes, this is a simplistic example and forgets the fact the Senate isn't a States' House, but it's extremely common). Firstly, let's clarify, Australia isn't a confederation - it is a federation. Both WA and QLD were very cautious and both were very late in holding referendums. In WA the referendum on federation was finally (and successfully) held nearly a month after the Constitution Act had been passed in the Imperial Parliament. I can't recall by what margin the referendum passed, but I believe it was wide enough to aviod being called narrow or slim. Many remained recalitrant in the West, however, and in 1933 a referendum of succession was even held there in which 68% voted in favour (it was the Great Depression, people were peeved!). This was ultimately pointless given the federation is indissoluble (and Britain told them off). The TAS/NZ federation thing is complete hogswash. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 18:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Re common currency: See this interview with the NZ Prime Minister in 2000 [1], and her views in 2004 [2]. This might represent the Australian Government's view: [3]. This is an opinion survey from 2004 on what NZers think of political union, a common currency, and various other measures: [4]-gadfium 02:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

One thing which always surprised me when this debate crops up is that the inevitable suggestion for merger is with Australia. Seems a bit like Te Kuiti deciding it want's to be part of a big smoke city and joining Te Awamutu. Why doesn't anyone ever suggest becoming a State of America (well, presumably there'd be another civil war, but) or revert back to being a dominion of the UK (which could leave us with tariff free access to the EU, while keeping our own parliamantlike Scotland - all we'd need to give up is foreign policy and defence...okay Tony Blair and Iraq, um, but we would have HELPED not vote for him, um okay, look is it that much worse than Winnie the Pooh as foreign minister? Speaking of censorship in history, (which you were way up the top somewhere, no really, the bit about Aussies and "Abos"), it's interesting to see some of the things we aren't taught in New Zealand...did you know that from January 1840, (when the Queen annexed us, whoops, sorry about that treaty in Feb) till 1841 we were in the law of the Empire part of New South Wales, (the governor of which had asserted authority over New Zealand as "minor off shore islands" as early as 1814). At which point you'll say yes I did know that, and deflate my balloon. Okay, just shhh, & don't tell Mr Peters. yours Winnie the other User:winstonwolfe

FYI: some links for you: http://nla.gov.au/nla.pic-an14282068 - the board that kept the official stats of Australian Federation Referendum http://www.waec.wa.gov.au/state/factSheet18.htm?section=state&content=factSh - stats on Commonwealth referendums by W Australia.

I also heard that the reason why WA was so late with its referendum was because it was so far away and they just couldn't get the documents there is in time. I'm now pretty annoyed that I sold a text book that I had at uni which had all the referendum stats from each state :( . I can't really recall if a simple majority was required to get over the line for federation or it was an extraordinary vote (ie over 75% like what is required by each state in today's referendums as per the Aust Constitution).Frances76 06:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Here it is: http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/federation/slides/slideshow/ss40.htm Frances76 06:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

i think a union between the two countries would be nice, people forget how much we have in common and focus on the differences...

Date format

I've reverted the change of the years to point to the timeline of New Zealand history. This is because doing this screws up the date formats that people have set in their user preferences. Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I have moved this discussion to: Talk:Timeline_of_New_Zealand_history

NevilleDNZ 04:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Judicary

So does New Zealand have a High Court, or is the current Supreme Court the highest court in New Zealand? The article is not clear.--nixie 01:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, above the Court of Appeal which is in turn above the High Court. Evil Monkey∴Hello 01:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

See Supreme Court of New Zealand. Xtra 01:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

True, but nixie makes a good point, because the paragraph he refers to is ambiguous.Moriori 02:05, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I've edited the pargraph with info from the Ministry of Justice. An article on court heirachy in New Zealand would be good.--nixie 02:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The 'Supreme Court of New Zealand' is nothing more than a quango imposed on the people of New Zealand without their consent.If it had been put to a referendum,a majority would have voted 'No'.As I am a retired constitutional ally to former Governor-General Sir Michael Hardie Boys (& a fierce Royalist!),I am strongly in favour of doing away with the Zimbabwe-style banana 'Supreme Court' & replacing it with a powerful Constitutional Court that is organised on the same lines as the Constitutional Court of South Africa.Of course,I am also a fierce advocate of restoring the right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London.We need an independent judicial tribunal that will take into account our unique situation here in New Zealand. (Aidan Work 05:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC))

That's nice to know, but doesn't really add anything to the discussion. Furthermore, it is not a quango, it is a court, just as the Privy Council was (for New Zealand). --LeftyG 02:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Lefty, in case you are not aware, Mr Work has been blocked from editing Wikipedia indefinitely. Moriori 03:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we could definately add more to the courts discussion. There is a lot to be said about the position of the various courts in the constitutional hierarchy, for example IIRC the High COurt traditionally has been of higher status than the Court of Appeal. As evidence for this the Chief Justice of New Zealand (who fills in for the Governor General when she is out of the country) was based in the High Court, not the Court of Appeal, pre Supreme Court. This is related to the point that most courts, like the District Court/Court of Appeal/SC are creatures of statute law not the traditional Anglo Saxon system. By this measurement the High Court predates and sits above these courts. I'd need to refresh my memory on this and do some research before I add anything here though. Juan Incognito 2/3/06

Juan, The reason that the Chief Justice was chosen from the High Court was that the Court of Appeal was originally a bench of the High Court (alongside several other specialist benches); Appeals Bench Judges were just High Court Judges sitting on the appeals bench. Although the Court of Appeal emerged as a court in it's own right, a number of functions were never tranferred to it (eg lawyers were acredited to the HC, not the CoA, but were recognised in all NZ courts). Personally I agree with Aidan: I would prefer to see our highest court placed well beyond control or interference by the government of the day, and believe that a court made up of international judges (including New Zealanders) would better protect individual freedoms. 220.233.181.140 12:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)KenNR

That is because the New Zealand High Court is our 'court of general jurisdiction'; that is, it is constituted to deal with all matters arising; whereas there are certain limits as to what can be taken to the District Court, and cases can only appear before the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court on appeal, and in the latter case when leave has been granted.

As for the Privy Council / Supreme Court debate, I would have thought that the recent antagonism between the current government (who ironically set up the court after decades of having it as a policy) and the Supreme Court actually goes to show that the fear of parliamentary intervention with the judiciary is largely unfounded - Judges tend to like their independence, as MPs do. That said, I do feel that we need to look at the way in which we appoint our Judges (i.e. take that power out of the hands of the Prime Minister and vest it in an independent body) to remove any question of political bias, the problem is that neither of the two major parties would support such a body as they would lose the power to influence the courts... --Lholden 22:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

New 'economy' comments

I view the comments recently added by Kiwimhm regarding the market crash leading to low economic growth as entirely spurious at worst, debateable at best. Actually, that entire economy section is politicised and non-neutral. This needs to be fixed to discuss only widely accepted views of the New Zealand economy, not blatantly anti-reform sentiment.--Voicey 09:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I have done my best to resolve some of these problems (which I, myself, found very bias). DannyMan 10:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Population

At the beginning of the page it says the population is 4.092 million but then lower in the article it's 4.2 million. What's it gonna be then people? 4 or 4.2 ?

Here's NZ's population 4.15 million (which could be rounded to 4.2 million) - from Statistics New Zealand which has a population clock top right of their homepage http://www.stats.govt.nz/default.htm

i don't know how you guys count in NZ, but where i'm from that population clock read 4.100593M not 4.15 M (therefore it cannot be rendered 4.2, although even if you could render it as such, would you want to?) -shrewd-

Map scale is wrong

Unfortunately the map scale in the NZ map from the CIA World Factbook is wrong. Please see: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:New_Zealand_map.PNG and a further note at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:New_Zealand_map.PNG

I have put a brief note in its caption. Until this is resolved I think it is wrong to display a map which is giving a wrong impression of the country's size.

Becase this affects more than one article I respectfully suggest that discussion about the map is best kept together at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:New_Zealand_map.PNG

Thank you.

I think I've managed to fix it. Grutness...wha? 01:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes I think so too - thanks, see the commons image talk for more. (from anonymous, grouchy old git)

New comer here, i think that you should visit http://www.eske-style.co.nz and press the buttom named "Explore New Zealand" to view their map of the North Island and South Island of New Zealand. This will give you the appropriate location of the towns. From zZParagonZz

That's a nice pair of maps, and if I understand correctly they're free to download and use so long as a reference back to Linz is included. We could certainly consider having these on Wikipedia.-gadfium 00:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

They certainly deserve to be linked from this article. I could have done with these when I was making all the NZ town location maps! Grutness...wha? 00:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

New comer again, I should have stated previously that we altered the maps to accommodate for our website design. The http://www.eske-style.co.nz site is under construction feel free to browse, you may find useful tidbits, but then I am biased, lol. Thank you 4 taking the time to read this, zZParagonZz P.S Yes LINZ map free with acknowledgement

Proposed name change

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)

Confusion

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)

Now, now, children. Play nice...;-)--Cyberjunkie | Talk 08:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

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

Sport section

The reversion here is becoming tiresome. Someone needs to provide some references to support their claim. Evil Monkey∴Hello 03:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, the boundaries of 3RR are getting stretched a little. Could shortly be well over the top. Moriori 03:08, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Are we exaggerating a little bit here? I've made two reversions of an edit that was highly dubious. An editor - an anon, no less - was making an unsubstantiated claim. To me, that lawn bowls would be more greatly patronised than netball and all other sports listed seemed particularly far-fetched. Because the anon provided no source for their claims, I decided to continue the status quo. Was that wrong of me?

And I don't think we're any where near needing to invoke 3RR. I am always careful in that regard - I typically will not exceed even one revert. Here, I have made two, and on separate days I might add. I won't be reverting again, but I would suggest to other editors that the latest edit should be again reverted and that the onus for validating claims falls to the anon.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 10:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

CJ, I am sorry if you thought I was getting at you specifically, because I wasn't. I believe most longer-term Wiki editors sometimes get a gut feeling about anons, and that's what happened here. Anon 61.86.180.75 has only 12 edits but I feel he knows the Wikipedia ropes. He reverted you at 15.04 Aug 31 then at 14.03 and 15.54 the next day. That's just outside 24 hours, but stretching the 3RR boundaries as I said. Anyway, no harm done, and the link that Grutness has provided should settle the matter. Cheers. Moriori 21:42, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Okay. Perhaps the indentation made it less clear, but my comment was addressing both your and Evil Monkey's concerns. I wasn't offended. Just perplexed. Thanks ;-)--Cyberjunkie | Talk 01:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I was probably a bit over the top, but still I think it should be onus on both parties to provide proof, not just the person going against what is the status quo. Evil Monkey∴Hello 02:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

This site might answer some of the questions. As far as official membership is concerned, bowls is well down the list. Top of the list, though, si not netball - it's golf (note though no current figures for rugby, which wuld run it close). Grutness...wha? 11:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Māori names

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)

Maori names can pose a problem,because Maori is a dialectal language whose pronounciation varies from area to area.The meaning of a word can have different meanings in different areas.There is a debate regarding spelling.As I am originally from Wanganui,I do not spell the name of the river or the national park with an 'h' in it,as the 'f' pronounciation for 'wh' is a Far Northern Maori pronounciation. Thus,I spell it 'Wanganui River',not 'Whanganui River',as the Maori Nationalists have been demanding for years,& getting their own way for far too long.As to macronisation in Maori,that really gets me.I have seen Maori words spelt with an umlaut instead of the ugly macron. (Aidan Work 05:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC))

dominion/Dominion

It would be appreciated elsewhere if someone could comment on whether or not New Zealand was ever a Dominion (with a capital D, like Canada, but if my understanding is correct, unlike Australia). If not, was it correct to describe it as a dominion (with a small d)? There seems to be widespread confusion, or at least ambiguity, over the distinction (if any) between these terms. See also Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927, Statute of Westminster 1931. Thanks. G Colyer 18:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure if the difference in capitalisation is meaningful.

According to "An Encyclopedia of New Zealand" 1966 para 2:

New Zealand became a Dominion in 1907, but it became clear that the concept of Dominion status was a developing one. Indeed, the development has gone so far that it is now generally conceded that the description “Dominion” is no longer an appropriate one to use in respect of the independent members of the Commonwealth, because it suggests some form of subordination to the United Kingdom, Canada ceased using the term some years ago, and it is now unusual to find it in official documents in New Zealand. The correct usage is suggested by the Royal Style and Title adopted by New Zealand in 1953: Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, New Zealand and of Her other Realms and Territories, Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. Elizabeth II is Queen of the United Kingdom; she has opened the Canadian Parliament as Queen of Canada and the New Zealand Parliament as Queen of New Zealand. Thus the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and other Commonwealth countries are the Realms of the Queen. These days we should think of the Realm of New Zealand rather than of the Dominion of New Zealand.

And according to the current Te Ara encyclopedia:

In 1907, six years after its six neighbouring colonies had formed the Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand was styled a dominion rather than a colony.

In short, I think the lower case is used in more modern times, and the meaning of the word changed long before the capitalisation did. I am not a constitutional lawyer, however.-gadfium 01:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

There has been huge debate over this issue at Talk:Canada/Officialname1 and Talk:Canada's name. The general consensus is that both nation's were once styled Dominion, but that the official name is the short form. - SimonP 02:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a clarification regarding Canada's name – based on various authoritative sources:

Dominion (or dominion in current parlance) is the legal title/description for the federation (as the former remains in the country's constitution);
Dominion of Canada is and remains an official title/name but is suppressed and disused (since after WWII);
the sole word Canada is the country's legal, and bilingual, name and generally used.

E Pluribus Anthony 21:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

New Zealand has been officially known as the Dominion of New Zealand since the 26th of September 1907.Did you know that Dominion Day used to be celebrated in New Zealand as a public holiday? I know that the 1st of July is celebrated as Canada Day,as the Dominion of Canada was established on the 1st of July 1867 under the terms of the British North America Act,1867 (which was replaced by the current Canadian Constitution in 1982). (Aidan Work 05:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC))

New Zealand became the Dominion of New Zealand in 1907. It's frequently - though not necessarily accurately - stated that it stopped being a Dominion in 1947 whent he Statute of Westminster was adopted by the country. This statute gave it full autonomy in foreign affairs from Britain, thereby reducing the "Dominion" status to a historical nicety. Whether New Zealand remains officially a Dominion or not, it is true that the term is rarely or never usedin New Zealand (even in official circumstances) whereas it still is used in Canada. It definitely was a capital D Dominion though - and it clearly says so on stamps issued during the reign of Edward VII. Grutness...wha? 05:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard of any formal name change for either Canada or New Zealand. I'm guessing the name of each country has always been just "Canada" or "New Zealand". However, the fact that the countries were according the privilege of being a dominion meant that it was adopted as part of the name in formal documents, for as long as it was politically expedient. Like most things to do with the constitution of Westminster-style countries, it's all very vague and ill-defined. In any case, I've not even been able to find any legal ramifications of being a dominion. It seems to be more political than legal.

Apparently lawyers still celebrate Dominion Day in New Zealand. (Although I've not been able to confirm this with an actual lawyer!)

Ben Arnold 23:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Ben Arnold & Grutness,Canada is still correctly known as the Dominion of Canada,in the same way that New Zealand is known as the Dominion of New Zealand.When I had meetings with former Governor-General Sir Michael Hardie Boys when he was still Governor-General,I referred to New Zealand as 'our Dominion' as my way of asserting my loyalty to Her Majesty,the Queen,as New Zealand is part of Her Majesty's Dominions.Sir Michael could understand where I was coming from.I still use the term 'Dominion' in my personal correspondence with the former Governor-General,who still remembers me as being a very constitutionally strong man. (Aidan Work 00:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC))

nz vs png

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)

Papua New Guinea is a South Pacific country. However, it is in Melanesia along with Vanuatu & the Solomon Islands as opposed to Polynesia, which is the group of countries that includes Fiji, Tonga, the Tokelau Islands, & Western Samoa. - (Aidan Work 02:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC))

nz size comparions

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)

Proposed merger with Aotearoa

Following other examples where an alternative name exists for a geo-political entity (such as Kanaky, Timor Lorosae, Kampuchea and Hellenic Republic), I propose that Aotearoa also be integrated into the state it refers to. Some country pages have a separate section about the usage and origin of their name(s), whether official or informal. --Big Adamsky 09:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The two pages were deliberately separated as they are conceptually different, as a quick glance at the Aotearoa page with half an eye at fifty paces would tell you. Maori concepts of what the land is and what it is referred to are at considerable odds with non-Maori views on the subject, and any merger would be likely to create more confusion in the article than the present situation. I strongly, violently, homicidally OPPOSE in big lurid capital letters. In any case, the length of the Aotearoa page would make any merger difficult, to say the least. Grutness...wha? 14:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I also oppose the merger. This is a page about the country, the other is about the Maori name of the country, the other is about the country itself. If Aotearoa was just one paragraph, it might be merged, but as is it would be out of proportion to the main New Zealand article. A better case might be made for merging Aotearoa with a page on Naming of New Zealand which would also go into the less well known Maori names as well as the story of Staten Land/New Zealand. Even then, I think it would be appropriate to have the Aotearoa page seperate.-gadfium 17:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I oppose any merger. Grutness and Gadfium have explained the case for continued separation. Both pages demonstrably merit their individual entities. Moriori 20:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I oppose as per Grutness and Gadfium. It is like trying to merge Womyn with Woman, same ultimate meaning but the articles are on completely different topics - SimonLyall 21:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Strong oppose As per G & G. Hell: let's just usher in Newspeak. E Pluribus Anthony 21:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Also oppose for reasons already given. ping 06:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I propose. Anyone? [joke]. I take it most of you opponents so far are New Zealanders. What are the official naming conventions? Are both names official in both official languages? Do both appear on your passports, for instance? My mind is drawing parallels with the situation Finland. Cheers. --Big Adamsky 18:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Noted. I am from Canada: the country's legal (and bilingual) name. The cover of my travel document is PASSPORT – PASSEPORT and is fully bilingual therein. E Pluribus Anthony 18:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Had Big Adamsky read NZ oriented pages before making this proposal he would have seen "Aotearoa .... is the Māori language name for New Zealand" and have learned that Māori is one of New Zealand's two official languages. Moriori 19:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Was that really necessary, Moriori? The question asked was if both official languages use both names interchangeably, not whether both are official. Do you know the answer? //Big Adamsky 20:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

One of your questions began with "Are both names official.....?" However, that is beside the point Big Adamsky, which is that you proposed merging two articles without knowing the content of those articles. Moriori 21:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

No, but I did propose merging two articles ("without knowing the content of those articles") in an attempt to simply clarify the policy ongeographic names, since I had noticed while surfing around that Éire has its own entry, while Persia leads to a dab page and Burma, Belau and Kampuchea redirect. Some historic names also redirect while others have pages of their own. //Big Adamsky 21:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Your Burma analogy doesn't stack up. If we had a separate article under the heading Burma, it would have identical content to the existing Myanmar. Now that you have (hopefully) fully read the Aotearoa and New Zealand articles you will know that they have quite different content, and justifiably so. The test is, now that you have seen the differences, do you still propose a merger?Moriori 22:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The proposed policy that you (Big Adamsky) are referring to specifically says "An attempt to work out a simple and acceptable policy for geographic names in Central and Eastern Europe." New Zealand is not in Central or Eastern Europe, so the proposed policy would not apply, and New Zealand should not be used as a test case for it. Is that the best argument you have to support your proposal? --LesleyW 22:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

(oppose) I don't know enough about the situation in Finland to know whether or not it's a valid parallel - I suspect that only somebody who has lived in both places would really be qualified to make the comparison. Nevertheless, I repeat my argument as stated on Talk:Aotearoa: simply because it might be appropriate to make the merger for other countries, that alone is not sufficient reason to insist on a merger in this case. The question about official documents is irelevant - the fact remains that the Aotearoa article is about more than simply being an alternative name for the country. The two articles have links to each other, and that should satisfy any arguments about duplication. (For the record though, my passport has New Zealand on the cover, and on the inside it is bilingual and uses both New Zealand and Aotearoa). --LesleyW 22:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I also oppose. I believe it's the English language usage that matters here. Aotearoa is clearly a Maori word, and NOT a commonly used word in the English language. And Aotearoa does not necessarily refer to the "geo-politial entity" of New Zealand in the Maori language. Think of it this way.... There are separate Wikipedia entries for Bohemia and Czech Republic, and there is no problem. (FYI Bohemia is the German word for Czech).--Endroit 20:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I propose. I agree that because Maori and English are both the official languages of New Zealand, Aotearoa should have the same page as New Zealand. How many people are actually going to type it in? They should be able to. And if they did, what is the big deal in having it share the same page as New Zealand? This statement can also be reversed, and say: Why should it? Here is my answer: It helps identify the fact that both Maori and English share the same capabilities in retrieving the information on New Zealand. I think it's fantastic that Maori and English are both the official languages in Aotearoa, so why not honour that? ~—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.9.245.180 (talk • contribs) .

Well, the tag has gone now but I think it should still be pointed out that this wasn't about "Aotearoa having the same page as New Zealand" as you say here. The New Zealand article is about the country. The Aotearoa article is about the name Aotearoa, not a country -- completely different raison d'être. Moriori 01:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the merge tags. There have been a number of comments opposing the merge, and only Big Adamsky and an anon in favour.-gadfium 23:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

OK: we shouldn't belabour this issue. A clear supermajority – 8 votes against, 1 for (as I write this, by my count) – rejects this proposal, but let's move on (unless there's reason to not do so). Head on over to Canada and Canada's name (even take a gander above) and you'll realise what sort of upswell there can be (was) for what the country's name/title, official/legal, etc. is/was ... particularly when verifiable sources are lacking/available. :) E Pluribus Anthony 04:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, perhaps the article ought instead to be called "Alternative names for New Zealand"? I have noticed also that pages about alternative geographical names are mainly related to societies where English is the first language, except where there is a prominent ongoing naming dispute. I'm guessing that maybe that is because this is the English-language Wikipedia. See also the naming discussion about whether Islamofascism is only a word or also a phenomenon. //Big Adamsky 16:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a red herring. Aotearoa and New Zealand are indigenous, bilingual (i.e., with equal status) names for the territory, which may or may not overlap. New Zealand prevails in English: there are a quarter of a billion online mentions of NZ as opposed to just over 5 million for the Maori name. But to shunt the latter would be disrespectful to New Zealanders (or the editors of the article), and for what purpose? And the article about New Zealand concerns much more than its name, just as the Aotearoa article should. And what other alternative names are there? In any event, such exceptions can easily be dealt with in a separate section, article, or redirect (Canadian example above). E Pluribus Anthony 16:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Big Adamsky, you still don't comprehend what the article says. A few pars above this one, I quoted from the intro to the article, namely, "Aotearoa .... is the Māori language name for New Zealand". It is NOT an ALTERNATIVE name. It is THE name regularly and exclusively used by many people, and demonstrably merits this article that deals with it. Regarding "Alternative names for New Zealand", would you change the heading of the New Zealand article to "Alternative names for Aotearoa"? Didn't think so."Moriori 19:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Big Adamsky's total disregard for the Maori concept of land is verging on being an insult to New Zealanders, Maoris, and all Polynesians. Aotearoa and New Zealand are not the same thing. And there is no naming conflict. Go read the articles again!--Endroit 19:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Haha, you guys (Endroit and Moriori) need to cheer up, stress down, take a deep breath, and take WP article merging proposals for what they are. It's sad to see you get so over-emotional that you can't participate in a simple rational internet discussion in a decent constructive fashion. Lighten up! =] Big Adamsky 21:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

There are good merging proposals, and there are bad ones. This one was a bad one. Some of us can see that, and some never will. Just as well there are experienced editors patrolling Wikipedia. Tee hee. Moriori 23:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Trivia

If anyone cares, the term for a someone not descended from Maori is pakeha. Trekphiler 16:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

South Africa

IMHO, the South African tours controversys needs brief mention in several articles, perhaps the sports in NZ article and the history of NZ article. The 1981 Springbok Tour provides a ood summary and the brief mention should link there. However I also feel Springbok Tour article needs to be worked to include a bit more on the background and perhaps renamed to something like "NZ Rugby Union apartheid controversy" (this is not a very good name I admit, but hopefully someone will come up with a better idea) with an appropriate redirect for 1982 Sprinbok Tour Nil Einne 14:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

A more general article on the New Zealand anti-apartheid movement would be good, which would cover the numerous rugby contacts (or proposed rugby contacts) which were a significant focus of the movement. There were other aspects to the movement besides opposition to rugby tours. While HART (Halt All Racist Tours) was the best known organisation, CARE (Citizen's Association for Racial Equality) was active in both anti-apartheid and domestic racism issues, and the NAAC (National Anti-Apartheid Committee) played a more educational, less protest-oriented role until it merged with HART just before the 1981 tour. There were also a number of local organisations. During 1981, umbrella groups were set up in each city - MOST in Auckland, COST in Wellington. At least a paragraph is needed for those sportspeople who declined to tour South Africa, especially in the 1960s, because Maori players were not allowed there, although those sportspeople were not part of any organised anti-apartheid movement.-gadfium 03:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Coat of Arms copyright?

I found this on the Ministry of Culture and Heritage website:

Use of the Coat of Arms 

The use of the New Zealand Coat of Arms is restricted to Government. It may not be used by private individuals
or organisations. 

Private persons and organisations may display the Arms as a decorative feature on particular national
occasions, for example Royal Visits, and Jubilee celebrations provided the display is not a permanent feature. 
Use of the Arms may be permitted on permanent souvenirs of a particular event, for example a Royal Anniversary 
or Visit. Advice of permission to use the Arms in this manner is published in the New Zealand Gazette. 
publishers of encyclopaedia, educational and heraldry books may be granted permission to reproduce the Arms in  
certain circumstances.

Since NZ doesn't have any fair use copyright provisions that I have heard off, doesn't this mean we need to obtain permission to use the Coat of Arms? (The image Image:New_zealand_coa.png is used in quite a lot of NZ-related pages).--Konstable 10:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here's my specious reasoning to get around this.

I am a New Zealand citizen.
The New Zealand government is my government.
I'm a reasonable person and representative of New Zealand the country.
I say it's okay to use the Coat of Arms.
Therefore it's okay.

And more specious reasoning:

Wikipedia is a very popular and prominent web site, freely available and widely used in New Zealand.
The New Zealand Coat of Arms has been used in Wikipedia for a number of years.
No representative of the New Zealand government has ever raised an objection to this.
Therefore it's okay.

Yeah, I know it doesn't hold water with Wikipedia's technically legalistic structure, but this is one of these occasions when technicalities do not and are so unlikely ever to matter as to be virtually non-existent. As a last resort, we New Zealanders can claim that American cultural hegemony in the form of litigation-minded legalistic pedantry (and specifically the litigation-minded legalistic pedantry incorporated into the structure of the American-founded Wikipedia) is oppressing our native laid-back, easy-going culture :-)

Plus if a representative of Wikipedia actually went to the Ministry of Culture and Heritage and asked "Hey mate, we got your coat of arms on this website, 'scalled Wikipedia. Izziss cool?", I anticipate they would reply along the lines of "Sweet as bro." Darobsta 11:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia is entitled to use the image in the article on Coat of arms of New Zealand under the fair use provisions of United States law. For any other use, permission should be sought. I would expect that the response of the Ministry would be a little more guarded than "Sweet as". They would probably give us permission to display the image on Wikipedia articles, but they would not release it under a free licence, and that would not be acceptable to us. Would someone with more New Zealand legal expertise like to comment?-gadfium 20:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It's an encyclopedia. Does anyone know if other encyclopedia's use it? Also, none of the articles are claiming to be representatives of the government. I would say it is fine, as heaps of company logos are used on their pages (such as Sony. --GeLuxe 23:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedias may be granted permission to reproduce the Arms in certain circumstances. In other words, we have to apply, and while we'll probably get permission, that will be permission to reproduce the images on Wikipedia only. We need the image released under GFDL or CC, and I think that's not going to happen.

Even without permission, we can use it on the article dealing with it under US fair use law, because Wikipedia is published in the US and is not subject to NZ laws. We can probably also use it on the New Zealand article. With company logos, fair use allows the use of the logo on the article for that company, but probably not on the article of the CEO of that company.-gadfium 05:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree it's quite unlikely we would get permission. You have to consider the reasons it's protected. It seems obvious that the clear intention is to prevented mis-use of the coat of arms in such a way that would be misleading or cast a bad light on the NZ government. If it's released under the CC or something of that sort, anyone can arguable use it for any purposes within the license conditions. They could still be charged with fraud or some such of course, but it's probably seen as simply easier to protect the logo itself rather then get involved in that mess Nil Einne 18:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Land Wars c.f. New Zealand Wars or alternatives

Thought I should raise the matter here as it is likely to be contentious, but i feel the term Land Wars is inappropriate; land was not a universal motivation in all the wars or amongst all the combatants. Comment? WW

I have no problem with calling them New Zealand land wars or New Zealand wars. I do object to the title they had up until mid-2005, Maori wars. If you move the article, please fix any double redirects created. There's also the category of the same name to be changed.-gadfium 05:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

What Gadfium said. New Zealand land wars is the title of the article in question, and they've had a discussion about the name on Talk:New Zealand land wars, they've covered a number of the issues there. Darobsta 05:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Moving Māori language to Maori language

FYI: There is voting going on in Talk:Māori language whether to move Māori language to Maori language. (My position is neutral on this, but I wanted to make sure everybody knew about it.)--Endroit 18:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

Maori name seems superfluous for the opening paragraph explaining the location and name of New Zealand, as it is not an official name but a colloquiallism. I wouldn't hesitate to add that the whole article is poorly written, especially in terms of grammar. The aim of this site should be to have articles that would be acceptable for a publisher. Whilst some "interest" articles are never going to be, major ones such as this should be aiming at that level.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.171.53 (talk • contribs) .

Superfluous? Check out Aotearoa. It is the Māori name for New Zealand, and Māori language is an official language of New Zealand. Incidentally, there is nothing stopping YOU from trying to improve the grammar. Also, when you post to talk pages it is helpful if you leave your signature by typing four tildes, ~~~~ . Moriori 22:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict so I have indented.) I know what Aotearoa means. Maori is an official language but Aotearoa is not an official name of the country, whether you like it or not.

I like it fine as it is thanks - recognition of a centuries old name for our country (yours and mine).

Māori is an official language of New Zealand, so I would say that makes Aotearoa the official name of NZ in Māori. It’s also a common alternative name in English. If anything I think the opening paragraph should mention ‘Aotearoa’ isn’t limited to Māori speakers. Barefootguru 05:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

We should also stop referring to "pakeha." As a white person, I find that term offensive.

There are several so-called definitions of pakeha. The original and prevailing meaning to Māori is non Maori. You can choose to interpret it as meaning white if you like (but is puzzles me why a white person could be offended by being called white).

We don't refer to Maori as "Natives" anymore.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.171.53 (talk • contribs) .

Tangata whenua suits just fine. Do you think we should revert to calling Māori by the term used by the early European settlers? Do you actually know what it was? Moriori 01:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah; they called them "Kai hopi" we definitely don't want use that; it's very rude. ping 07:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about that ):-. Actually, the settlers called them New Zealanders. Moriori 07:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC).

Aotearoa is an important secondary name. It is not an offical name, and no where does it state that. I'm also a pakeha, and I prefer to be called that, rather than, say, "European" or "whitey". --GeLuxe 00:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I find it uncofortable to be called a "pakeha" because of its meaning in Māori - "white pig". Though I take no offense from it. (Though I'm a Eurpoean from outside NZ, so I'm not a pakeha anyway). And since its commonly used by everyone, including the government I see no reason on why reference to it should be removed. Also I think Aotearoa is a very important name, and it is used very often here. So I say it very rightfully deserves to have stay as it is in the opening paragraph.--Konstable 00:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

According to the article on the word Pākehā, it is dubious that it means "white pig". "Poaka is pig in Māori, and common Māori words for white include mā and tea, making this a very unlikely translation or point of origin." Evil Monkey - Hello 00:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, urban legend to make us ‘pākeha’ feel righteous! The Reed Māori dictionary defines it as ‘non-Māori, European, Caucasianʻ. It’s how I identify myself, with no qualms. Barefootguru 05:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment any more about this article; I have voiced my opinion but clearly this public article is defended by people who see their idea of what is official and what is not as the way to go about issues. The opening two paragraphs mention geography, ethicity, language and politics with no clarity or direction. I feel the Aotearoa explaination should be moved further down - it's nothing to do with geography and it is not an official name. On the pakeha issue - it's interesting because unlike most countries we were not born out of nationalism or a sense of brotherhood, thus the white descendents don't have an ethnic identity, like Estonians for example. 69% of kiwis are "white," and because our historical links to Britian and Ireland are becoming less important, I think the word "pakeha" will take its place, though I will never call myself pakeha. I'm sorry if I sounded aggressive; I just wanted to see change in the article, but I know now that this will not be forthcoming. It's supposed to be an official guide but some people have become sentimental towards it. -Stop badgering me to sign off; I don't have to.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.171.53 (talk • contribs) .

Read Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Also, for a guy who said "I'm not going to comment any more about this article" you sure left a screed of comment ):-. Moriori 20:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I don’t understand your (User:82.35.171.53) arguments. You start by saying ‘defended by people who see their idea of what is official and what is not as the way to go about issues’ but then defend your own stance with ‘it is not an official name’; which by the way, I think it is (as explained above). I also don’t understand your ‘ethnic identify’ statement—I think NZ has a strong one, and other countries also have both indigenous people (Canada, Australia, America…) and an ethnic identify. Barefootguru 21:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hope it isn't a bad idea to resurrect this dead discussion but I personally think all this talk about official is rather silly. It doesn't matter whether it's official or not (and I personally think it is). All that matters is, how relevant and common is it? The fact of the matter is, whether anyone likes it or not, Aotearoa is a very commonly used both by the government and other parties (I'm sure anyone who has selected New Zealand in various internet forms has seen Aoteroa in brackets often enough). It is commonly mentioned on our tourists brocherues. Therefore, it is a very common alternative name and should be mentioned in the opening paragraph. Nil Einne 18:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Measurements per WP:MOSNUM Formating

Moriori and I are in disagreement about which is the correct way to write measurements in an article. Moriori believes this is the correct way: ... by the Tasman Sea, some 2,000 km (1,242 mi) across. I believe that this is the way it should be written:...by the Tasman Sea, some 2,000 kilometres (1,242 mi) across. The kilometres should be spelled out not abbreviated and miles should be abbreviated to mi. If miles were the value in the text then the opposite would be true; miles spelled out and the kilometres abbreviated to km. I believe Moriori is 100% wrong on this, but here is what the Wikipedia Manual of Style (dates and numbers) has to say from its section on measurements. Let the other editors be the judge.

As copied from WP:MOSNUM Measurements Units-

Wikipedia articles are intended for people anywhere in the world. Try to make articles simple to read and translate.

•Conversions should generally not be removed.

•If editors cannot agree about the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second.

•Spell out source units in text. Use digits and unit symbols for converted values and for measurements in tables. For example, "a pipe 100 millimetres (4 in) in diameter and 10 miles (16 km) long".

•Converted values should use a similar level of precision as the source value. For example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth", not "(236,121 mi)".

•Use standard abbreviations when using symbols. For example, metre is m, kilogram is kg, inch is in (not " or ″), foot is ft (not ' or ′).

•Do not append an s for plurals of unit abbreviations. For example, kg, in, yd, lb not kgs, ins, yds, lbs.

•Some non-metric units have more than one version. Be specific. For example, U.S. gallon or imperial gallon rather than just gallon. Similarly, use nautical mile or statute mile rather than just mile in aviation, space, sea and in some other contexts.

•The reader should see a space between the value and the unit symbol, for example "25 kg" not "25kg". Use for the space (25 kg) to ensure that it does not break lines.

Therefore I'm reverting again. Have a nice day! MJCdetroit 14:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I see nothing wrong with using "km" rather than "kilometres". It's shorter and quicker to read, and not at all ambiguous. I have more of a problem with miles being abbreviated, since "mi" means nothing to me without context. The idea of using standard abbreviations for non-standard units is rather amusing. At any rate, this is not worth having an edit war over.-gadfium 20:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth? But 240,000 milli-inches is only 20 feet! Grutness...wha? 11:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

MJCdetroit and Moriori have both made multiple revisions regarding source units in the text. The Manual of Style clearly indicates that such units should be spelt out, and in disputes such as this, it seems logical to let the manual of style prevail (no-one should take offense at the Wikipedia guidelines being followed). An argument presented against this is that such a change would not be consistent with the rest of the article. However, virtually all other units (i.e., those in the Geography section) adhere to the manual of style. So, essentially, the issue seems to be: does anyone have reasons why the manual of style should not apply in this case? Elpoca 18:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Motto: None. Formerly "Onward"??

What does this mean? Is it a formal motto or not?Glennh70 11:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it's formerly "Onward", not formally "Onward". In other words, there used to be a motto, and that motto was "Onward". Now there is no motto (well, technically, the motto could be considered to be "New Zealand", since that's what's written on the scroll, but that's just nit-picking). It was changed when the arms were modified slightly in the 1950s (when my granny-in-law was removed as a supporter, FWIW). Grutness...wha? 11:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Glen, you're an idiot. Heres a good t-shirt for you [5] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.171.53 (talk • contribs) .

Sindarin

Please do not remove Sindarin as an official language of New Zealand. New Zealand is Arda after the arrival of Peter Jackson, and Sindarin has been adopted as an official language of the country. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.9.99.42 (talk • contribs) .

Umm… since when? I’ve removed it until I see some proof. Barefootguru 17:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

New Zealand is the only official name of this country. Aotearoa and Arda are false names, and should be stamped out.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.171.53 (talk • contribs) .

New Zealand is the official name in English. Aotearoa is the most common name in Māori , which is also an official language of the country, so deserves to have a place in the introductory paragraph. Adding Arda is just someone's idea of a joke.-gadfium 01:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If user 82.35.171.53 has a NZ passport he might like to check out his mugshot page which he will see has the heading "New Zealand * Aotearoa". Seems official to me. Moriori 06:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:Oceania and Template:Polynesia

There appears to be a big overlap between these two templates. Oceania appears to be the most popular. I suggest that Polynesia be removed since it is almost a subset. Possible they Polynesia can be merged into Oceania - SimonLyall 11:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Famous kiwis?

How about a list of famous kiwis such as Ernest Rutherford. Seems to be a common item in country articles.

List of New Zealanders perhaps? - SimonLyall 09:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Portal link

I think the Portal link should be higher up the page, almost at the top. Is there a reason it is so low down? What do other people think? --Midnighttonight 09:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

No. Although the majority of portal links remain at the top of articles, they should be and are being moved to "See also" sections where they are least likely to clash with other formatting - especially in articles about countries where the space at an article's top is occupied by Template:Infobox Country.--cj | talk 03:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives