Talk:New Zealand/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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)

Text from December 2001

Wouldn't it be better to post this either during Open Review or after publication, rather during copy edit. I am assuming someone wants this here because it is a good article on New Zealand- then wait for publication- or to seek improvements - then during open review.

Unlles, you are seeking elaboration on of links - still wait for publication, I think.

Confused.

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:

• Photos of New Zealand landscapes & cities
• New Zealand Television
• Jane's New Zealand Home Page: photos and tourist information
• New Zealand Main Internet Forum

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)

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)

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)

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)