Talk:New Zealand

Motorsport

I have added motorsport to the sports section of the article because I know that it has a much bigger following than other sports listed like golf, swimming and tennis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exalt4korn (talk • contribs) 01:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I note that the article was indef semi-protected on 12 March due to anonymous vandalism. I think the levels of vandalism on this article are in fact quite mild, and there is no recurring vandalism by someone on a dynamic IP address, which is the usual reason to semi-protect an article in the long term. The article is also on very many editor's watchlists, and blatant vandalism doesn't last long.

This is the highest profile article relating to New Zealand on Wikipedia. This is the 410th most popular article on the site, and no other NZ-related topic is in the top 1000. The hit counter gives it 8-9000 hits per day.

It's part of our core philosophy that anyone can edit. I'd like to see the semi-protection of this core article dropped. Do I have support to remove it?-gadfium 19:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm the admin who semi-protected the page in the first place. I have no problems with it being lifted. Acalamari 19:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the semi-protection, as no one has commented other than Acalamari.-gadfium 19:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's still semiprotected. 03:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.249.108.250 (talk)

It was protected again due to ongoing vandalism. See #Protection back?-gadfium 05:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Zealand?

Where did that name come from?, recently i found Zealand is a region of denmark, any connection?--88.212.96.96 (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

See New_Zealand#Etymology. There's no connection to the region of Denmark.-gadfium 19:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Could be "Zeeland", a province of the Netherlands. Besides, wasn't Abel Tasman Dutch? I see a little connection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.88.39 (talk) 12:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"reigns but does not rule"

I don't think the reference given actually backs up the statement. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no reference given. This statement is common knowledge to most NZers. Smithspa (talk) 07:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Do other Commonwealth nation's articles use this phrase? (Australia, Canada etc...) ^rossnixon 08:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Monarchy of New Zealand, Monarchy of Canada, and Monarchy of Australia all use it. There may be more, but I stopped at three. The main articles Canada, United Kingdom, and Australia do not use the phrase, but that is no reason why this one shouldn't. -Rrius (talk) 08:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Football not Soccer

The game was officialy renamed Football by the New Zealand Football Federation. The only professional Football Club in New Zealand is called the Wellington Phoenix Football Club. And the term Football is now slowly becoming the most used word. Mainly, Wikipedia should use the official name and call it Football. -CipherPixel 14:45, 30th April 2008 (NZST)

Bad bad idea. Especially for this article. I agree that the term football is becoming more common in NZ to refer to soccer, but it's still ambiguous to refer to any of the three professional codes of football in NZ as football. Soccer prevents confusion, and is still the most common name for the sport in NZ. - Shudde ^talk 02:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

And from a Football fans point of view, the most common name for Rugby is "Crappy Game". I think it should go the official way though, and just put Soccer in brackets next to it. :) -CipherPixel 20:30, 30 April 2008 (NZST)

Sorry, but as long as it's ambiguous it's a very bad idea. This article is written in NZ English, and soccer is still easily the most common name for the sport here. Those are two very good reasons we should just leave it as is. - Shudde ^talk 06:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Since USA is the only major country which still calls it soccer, and if you're studying New Zealand you'll most likely be outside of NZ. It should be Football. This is the official name and is slowly becomnig accepted. That is more than enough reason to have FootballCipherPixel (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Until it's widely used that way in NZ English, I don't think we should call it football in this article. What matters most is common usage, not official names. -- Avenue (talk) 11:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The Sport in Australia and Australia use Soccer. See also the NZ and Australian entries in Football_(word) - SimonLyall (talk) 01:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, Australia is totally irrelevant. Even though they actually call the game Football aswell. Secondly, officialness is most important. Else wise - this is not a correct Encyclopedia, but one made on user's unsupported opinions. Thirdly, to assume Soccer avoids confusion is ignorant. As USA and parts of Canada are the only major countries to still cal the game 'Soccer'. Fourthly, many New Zealanders are now calling it Football. I know the my school (Wellington College) they refer to it as Football. Also, since Rugby is never referred to as Football, (sometimes, but very rarely, it's referred to as Footy), nor is League referred to as Football and nor is Grid Iron. It in no way shape or form creates confusion. Especially when it is being used in the same paragraph as the other sports outlined above. CipherPixel (talk) 11:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't say Australia is irrelevant and in the next sentence say that only the US and Canada use soccer. Read the article. Within Australia the term "football" is ambiguous and can mean around four different codes of football in Australian English, depending on the context, geographical location and cultural factors - SimonLyall (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted your last edits CipherPixel - if you want to make a contested change to an article like this, you should wait until a consensus is reached. At the moment it appears to be running against your proposed change. Kahuroa (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh ffs just call it Football already. You know, Football? Where you kick the ball with your foot? No one calls Rugby or League Football so don't use that confusion bollocks as an excuse. Soccer is for ignorant gits from America. Football, get it right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.105.244 (talk) 11:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Football and soccer are both legitimate terms, but there are several distinct games called 'football' and only one called soccer. Since both terms are used in New Zealand, let's just go with the one which won't cause any confusion, even if only amongst 'ignorant gits from America' (by which I assume you mean the United States). --Helenalex (talk) 12:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a bit unfair to have it called soccer. The name on the country shirt is New Zealand Football. The name of the championship is the NZFC- the New Zealand Football Championship. The governing body is refers to the game as football. It would be a courtesy to have it referred to be its correct official name. The country's professional club is the Wellington Phoenix Football Club, playing in the A-league run by the Football Federation of Australia.

The name soccer is a nickname derived from Association Football. No one is suggesting calling the game of Rugby Union, rugger or union, simply because there is another rugby sport- that of rugby league. I would disagree that the name is contentious, it is the offical established name. Any chance of this being respected in the wiki article?

The etymology of the word is not important; neither is what it's called by official organisations. What's most important is the most common name used in New Zealand, so as long as that doesn't change, neither will the article. - Shudde ^talk 13:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

So just so I understand you correctly- and I have no idea who you are- perhaps you are Tony Veitch or Griz Wylie- it doesn't matter if the people who play the game, name the teams in the game, organise the game, distribute and manufacture the merchandise for the game call the game they play one thing- it will be called something else because this other thing is the most common usuage in the country.

I have to wonder what you are basing this on. I think it is most likely that this is what the sport was called by your Phys. Ed. teacher when you went to school, and you have not given much further thought to it.

It's true that soccer as a term is popular among some areas of the media, who also share this view and by and large take little interest in the sport. However, this is far from universal. Indeed Stuff- which represents a sizeable portion of the countries newspapers refers to it as football. It is called football on the TVNZ website. I think it is only fair to describe these two media outlets as fairly modern and aware of their readership's language. Even in organisations such as Radio Sport that still use the soccer heading- please note that the terms actually used in the following article is football. This occurs in the first five articles on this page http://www.radiosport.co.nz/SportsNews/SpSoc/

ie "The fight to avoid relegation is well and truly on in English football's Premier League" "The draw for the 2008-2009 A-League football season has been released; the Phoenix will play first two games at home

The draw for the 2008-2009 A-League football season has been released." "It seems another club versus country football battle is looming..." "Football chairman won't stand again 5/1/2008 3:40 PM

Another change in NZ Football with chairman John Morris deciding not to seek re-election at next month's AGM

The sweeping changes continue at New Zealand Football with chairman John Morris deciding not to seek re-election at next month's AGM."

"Waitakere United smarting after 3-1 loss to Kossa FC in first leg of O-League football final in Honiara- heat a problem

Waitakere United is smarting after a 3-1 loss to Kossa FC in the first leg of the O-League football final in Honiara. Injured captain Danny Hay says it is disappointing for a number of reasons."

"Kossa FC have beaten New Zealand Football Championships Waitakere United 3-1 in their O-League final first leg in Honiara."

"Fulham midfielder Simon Elliott is determined to play for the New Zealand men's football team at this year's Olympics."

The term is clearly in common usuage, despite the existence of another nickname, which is now at best on an even footing, and most prevalent with those with little exposure to the game, and therefore least likely to use it. If the term is commonly available in the main media sources describing the game, is this not a fair indication of its usuage? Wikipedia should reflect current language usuage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.48.198.6 (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this is enoug evidence to support using the term 'Football' By which in every country other than the US / Canada is not confusing at all. If you went to Europe, many places in South America and most places in the world, they would have no idea what the term 'Soccer' means. CipherPixel (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You are using a page that has a big title saying "*****SOCCER NEWS*****" to try and convince me that football is the more common term in NZ? You're joking right? - Shudde ^talk 01:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a very good argument really. They'll get around to a name change some day, but progress takes time during which people keep flogging dead horses. Wiki is it's own best example of that. Check our article about the New Zealand Rugby Union here. Note the name of the article -- New Zealand Rugby Football Union -- yet the official and actual name of the union does not include the word football, (see here). We actually redirect the official NZRU title to New Zealand Rugby Football Union which is not the name of the organisation. I'm usually for the status quo, but support "football" for the round-ball game because more and more people are calling it football. Would anyone here be prepared to edit the Pele article and insert the word "soccer" in the 40 -- yes 40 -- occasions where football/er/ers appear? Oh sure, you might say, they call it football in Brazil. That's exactly the point. In NZ the word football is becoming increasingly popular common usage. I can't see a reason to reject it entirely. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah when I first replied I said it was becoming more common, but it's well away from being the most common name for the sport, and that's what is what matters. - Shudde ^talk 03:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you read my post?

Seriously dude, kind of offended by your comment there. I thought it was a valid point which you completely ignored. I'll post it again, to give you a chance to read it...unless you're getting a kick out of a bit of baiting...not doing anything else much important anyway.

"Even in organisations such as Radio Sport that still use the soccer heading- please note that the term actually used in the following articles is football. This occurs in the first five articles, [and presumably further], on this page http://www.radiosport.co.nz/SportsNews/SpSoc/"

The term is clearly in common usuage, despite the existence of another nickname, which is now at best on an even footing on the official name.

Could I suggest an edit such as football (also referred to as soccer)?

Being honest you have given two reason why not- one confusion with other football games. A non-issue. Only one is named football. As I mentioned rugby is always referred to as rugby despite there being another sport called rugby league. No problem there. No other sport is directly referred to as football. The Bledisloe cup was requested to be designed for a football game. Initially the ball created on it was round as this was what was understood there by football, and this had to be changed to its current oval shape when it arrived in New Zealand.

You then said it wasn't common usuage. I have put forward some evidence to suggest there is common usuage. TVNZ and Stuff have to be two of the top 3 or 4 nationwide news sources. I feel it is fair enough to take their position as common usuage, something you haven't disputed. Fair play yeh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.48.198.6 (talk) 02:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not going to keep going over this. It's cleary more common, and trying to force people to call it something different is pointless. The Herald website calls it soccer, so does radio sport. Lets not forget that until very recently New Zealand Football was called New Zealand Soccer—clearly they realised that the sport is most commonly called soccer here, and although that may change, it certainly hasn't yet. I'm not going keep rehashing the same old argument. - Shudde ^talk 03:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The consensus here is clear, so lets stop wasting any more time please. - Shudde ^talk 03:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus? 3 people have given clear arguments. If you are a journalist you are an exceptionally poor one. If you are a historian you would never pass a peer review. You are not 'arguing', you are repeating your own line and ignoring any evidence that contradicts it. This is consensus of the George Bush type. As I mentioned the radio sport is a case where the dual usuage is very clearly established. In other words- the New Zealand Herald is the definitive source of New Zealand English. Or perhaps you are. very arrogant. You haven't gone over it once yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.48.198.6 (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Shudde, that was a totally arsey-boo argument if ever I saw one. New Zealand Soccer changed to New Zealand Football because football is becoming the common usage. Like hell "they realised that the sport is most commonly called soccer here" as you claim. They wouldn't have discarded the name had that been the case. Hey, I'm not ferociously fighting for football. (Sorry for the alliteration!). I think too that if people discuss this, they shouldn't advance obviously specious claims and then scarper, as suggested by your "Yeah I'm not going to keep going over this". Have a good one. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think consensis this the F-word is ambigious in NZ english and the S-word should be used instead for now since it is still in common usage. A serach of stuff and the herald shows f-word being used for at leat two codes and S-word also being used. Perhaps a few years down the track usage will change. Currently the F-word doesn't appear in the article and there appears to be only 1 user and 2 anonymous users disputing this. - SimonLyall (talk) 03:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Clearly the common usage is football. Majority of football club in NZ has "AFC" or "FC" which represents "Association Football Club" or "Football club", the A was clearly dropped and the usage used is Football. No Football club in NZ has ever used "Soccer". It has become very disgraceful/odious terminology among kiwi Football circles in the last 5 years. The argument about New Zealand Football was called New Zealand Soccer is very weak, considering that New Zealand Soccer was called New Zealand Football Association for well over 100 years. NZS was very short lived as a name. As for the use of the "Soccer" name among the media, it is hardly used and obviously directed towards using "Football" as the term to use. Just because Rugby people and a certain NZ generation use the term "soccer", does not mean that the rest are saying it. Since the majority of the world and football clubs members use the term "football" and not "soccer" and Wikipedia is a global information to everyone in the world, it definitely be "Football" not "Soccer" Topsaint 04:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topsaint (talk • contribs)

Guess you missed Petone Soccer Club , looking at a few websites of the clubs I also see them using soccer in various places so it obvious is being used by people playing the game and not just random old farts who don't play the game. Lets put it this way. You can't use "football" . You can use "Association Football" or "Soccer" or something else. However "football" is too ambigious in New Zealand English which is what the article is written in. - SimonLyall (talk) 05:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Then again how many people call it "Association Football" in every day usage? You are right though, speaking as someone who played the sport for 15 years, we called it soccer, even though our club was AFC. - Shudde ^talk 05:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Could people please sign their posts and refrain from attacking the person rather than argument ('if you are a journalist you are an extremely poor one' = bad; 'arsey-boo argument' = fine although a little odd).

2. When there is any potential for confusion, rugby union tends to be referred to as such. --Helenalex (talk) 06:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Please explain why you consider odd an accurate description of an argument ('arsey-boo argument')? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 06:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's a common phrase in your social circle, but I've never heard it before... --Helenalex (talk) 00:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong helenalex. It's not a common phrase (commonly used) in my social circle, because we don't have a limited vocab. Sometimes we deliberately choose words that give/infer more than one meaning. BTW, did you bother to try to find out what it means? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Soccer has lost it's argument here. While they're the first to bring up the 'majority' they find the only 2 or 3 clubs that still have Soccer in their name. The argument about it being confusing has been teared apart by the international status of Wikipedia. And Shudde, what you called it 15 years ago is irrelevant. As I say, me and my mates call Rugby 'The Poopie Sport' and other names that follow that trend. Also if this article is written in New Zealand English, then the official, proper, non-slang name is Association Football. Not Soccer. CipherPixel (talk) 09:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

One point: Wiipedia is a resource for people outside NZ as well. Remember that not everyone using the English Wikipedia is a native speaker of English. I'd guess that someone looking at the sport in NZ page would find "Football" or "Association football" the clearest heading. I suspect that common usage within NZ is not really that relevant for these people *when they are looking for information*. Neil Leslie (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

On that theory we should probably follow American usage (soccer), since they make up three quarters of native English speakers. -- Avenue (talk) 15:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I think you have exactly misread my comment: for *non*-native speakers we should prefer the global English conventions (whatever those might be) rather than those of the largest single group of native speakers. AFAIK non-native speakers of English outnumber native speakers, and my guess is that for them "football" means "Association football", but I may be wrong, of course.Neil Leslie (talk) 02:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. - Shudde ^talk 03:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I assume that you mean the bit which reads "Sensitivity to terms that may be used differently between different varieties of English allows for wider readability; this may include glossing terms and providing alternative terms where confusion may arise." You did mean that bit didn't you? Sorry, I'm being facetious. But that's a thing about guidelines: sometimes they conflict. So you have to make a choice. I was hoping to suggest that "making Wikipeadia more useable for more people" might be a better criterion on which to make a choice then "what NZ English usage is or should be", especially since there doesn't seem to be much agreement on the latter. Best Neil Leslie (talk) 09:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The policy exists to stop arguments about national varieties of English. There is no confusion here if the word soccer is used, I would be very suprised if any native speaker didn't know what soccer was, the chances of confusion using the term football however, is much much higher. Plus of course, the term soccer is more commonly used in NZ. The point I was making was, what the most common term is outside NZ is irrelevant, and policy backs this up. I don't want to digress off topic too much here, but if we applied the "making Wikipeadia more useable for more people" we would have all start writing in American English (the variety most native and non-native speakers learn) and that would be a disaster. - Shudde ^talk 23:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Helenalex. I apologise for the ad hominem. I just find it frustrating to bring up a relevant point and have it it continually ignored. Nobody has debated or refuted that football is in common usuage and not confusing as it is used by two of New Zealand's largest news sources. That soccer is also in use is not denied. Neither TVNZ or Stuff believe that it is confusing. (I think "arsey-boo" is kind of odd, but effective!) RNZ seems to use football as well, but inconclusive sample today. I don't think any other arguments really need to be applied-

It is the official correct name. It is in common usuage in New Zealand. I'm not saying soccer = bad football = good. Also I think we should eat our eggs with the pointy bit sticking up with toast cut into little soldiers... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.150.209.201 (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, that shouldn't be formed on people's opinion's but formed on official facts. Football is called Football in New Zealand. Football is known as Soccer in USA. Not anywhere else in the world. Arogance suggests we should do everything USA wants. Even though Football was named Football before the Americans named grid iron Football. But that's not the point, the point is Football is the official name, and Football does not cause confusion. Elsewise, Soccer and Football are two completely differant sports, as they have differant names. Soccer = sport without governing body called this by Rugby Fans and others. Football = games governed by New Zealand Football where 11 men aim to get a ball into one of the goals at either end. CipherPixel (talk) 09:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally I always look for more information whenever I see the word 'Football' is used in New Zealand - usually I can figure it out from the scores, or from some 'AFC/RFC' name. The word 'soccer' is, to me, entirely unambiguous and as well as having grown up hearing it I also still (regularly) hear it when people talk about (e.g.) 'Indoor Soccer'. The list of 'This RFC' vs 'That AFC' seems to me to imply that, while their might be a belief by soccer fans that the 'F' word belongs to them, it is in fact used by both games. No matter how much the official body might want to elide the colloquial use of the term 'Soccer' and take over the name 'Football' they have a considerable way to go before it is reasonable to call anything other than 'Association Football' an 'official fact'. (disclaimer: I was born in New Zealand and loathe both the 'AF' and 'RF' varieties equally). Karora 19:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you cannot deny that the official name is Football.
Secondly, if your comment is true, then Soccer and Football refer to entirely differant games. As I said above, Soccer is then some sport without a governing body, while Football is a sport governed by NZF.
If this wasn't the case, the official word is Football. And soccer is just a shortend word. So technically Soccer is counted as a nickname, not the actual name. There is now no evidence stopping this from being changed. CipherPixel (talk) 09:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be a lack on consensus as to the consensus. Note that the articles Soccer , Football (word) and Association football have more general wikipedia info on wording. Perhaps if people their choise of wording explicit. This is not a vote (ie don't stuff the ballot) just a chance for people to be clear what they think:

Soccer

• Second choice is Association football - SimonLyall (talk) 11:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with SimonLyall, same second choice.-gadfium 20:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• /me too Karora 20:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• My second choice would be "football (soccer)". -- Avenue (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Soccer is the most common name for the sport in NZ. I wouldn't know what is the second most common. - Shudde ^talk 01:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Soccer. I've never actually heard anyone call it football until other countries started calling it that. Metagraph comment 06:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Football

• . (Also known as soccer)- I'm not sure why there is an aversion to getting it officially correct, but also satisfying a group that has historically known it as soccer. Surely this would satisfy both sides? Note the same story in the Herald- Beckham's soccer team and Dom post Beckham's football team. Both in common usuage. -Gulliver
• And as both are in comman usage, then it would be only correct to use the official term. Also, since Soccer is an abbreviation, then rugby should be used rather than rugby union, and league should be used rather than rugby league. No one says "Did you see the Rugby Union match last night" etc etc. So basic consistancy is lacking in the article. CipherPixel (talk) 06:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Completely disagree with the sport being named "soccer". The official term in NZ is football. The official term on Wikipedia appears to be Association football, as per the article "Soccer" being a redirect. The professional league in NZ refers to the sport as football (NZFC not NZSC). No professional or semi-professional team in NZ use the term soccer, in fact three (Auckland City FC, Waikato FC, Wellington Phoenix FC) use the term football. Hence, soccer is not the most well known name in New Zealand. Perhaps in some circles it's known as such, but this is only colloquial. Wikipedia, being an encyoclopedia, should reflect the official name. Gialloneri (talk) 02:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Official name has nothing to do with it, and there is no way it's a colloquial term. Soccersouth. The main page of their website says "Soccersouth is the Federation that governs Soccer in the region encompassing Timaru, Mckenzie Basin, Waimate, Waitaki, Clutha, Central Otago, Queenstown, Dunedin, Gore and Invercargill." It's just plain insane that people are saying the official name is football, and that soccer is a colloquial term, because that is not true. Soccer is still used by official organisations within New Zealand. - Shudde ^talk 02:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • While you are correct in that Soccersouth have yet to embrace the name change purported by the national sporting body (perhaps due to the fact that it may very well soon merge with Mainland Football, hence making it irrelevant), I refer to it as colloquial because of your insistance on this article being put in the language of the topical country - something I do not dispute. However, Soccersouth only covers a small population base. Every official organisation north of Timaru refer to the sport as Football. Soccersouth is the exception, rather than the rule. I refer to it as colloquial because it is only used in official capacity by what is effectively an anomaly. And I argue this without resorting to attacks on the sanity of anyone who disagrees otherwise. In addition to this, I question and disagree with your stance that the official name is irrelevant. In fact, seeing as Wikipedia is a encyclopaedia, namely a collection of facts, not opinions, the official terminology used by the topic party makes the most sense. Anything else is disrespectful. Gialloneri (talk) 05:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • We are trying to establish the most common name, read my post below for why claiming it's official means nothing, and I dispute the level of authority over New Zeland English you seem to think New Zealand Football has. Facts are facts, and fact is that soccer is the most common term used by the average New Zealander; which is why the status quo should stay. Also please don't dilute the opinion of a southern body just because the population down there isn't the same as Auckland's. Referring to them as an anomaly could be seen as quite disrespectful. - Shudde ^talk 05:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is but by very few, In fact since the name change of the national FA to New Zealand Football the local federations have been rebranding themselves with the word football also. Very few people I know actually call rugby "football", particularly in younger age groups which in my opinion shows the growth in use of the term. If it really is such a fuss is there anything wrong with at least calling it 'Association Football?' It is after all, the original and probably most official term.Critical Lemon (talk) 03:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I know many are rebranding, and i'm not disputing that, but that is what changing the name New Zealand Soccer to New Zealand Football is, a re-branding. It's not about them enforcing an official name change for the sport across New Zealand, but simply changing their organisation's official name. I also agree that not many people call rugby football, but some do, and because rugby is the most common name, that is what it's called in the article (although we use the term 'rugby union' as well, because some people get confused between rugby and rugby league). However what we are trying to determine here is the most common name for soccer/football/whatever—not whether other names are growing, or what the name is outside New Zealand, or what the etymology of the word is, or what Football New Zealand calls it. All that we are trying to determine is the most common name used by New Zealanders in New Zealand, and the consensus seems to be (from many regular editors to New Zealand related articles, not specifically affiliated with sports artilces) that it's soccer. - Shudde ^talk 03:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

What you really have to ask yourself is, Do we want to follow what's official, or do what want to follow what SOME who don't care about it call it. As I also said above, if you keep it as soccer because it is the most comman name (which it isn't) then rugby union will be changed to rugby, and rugby league will be changed to league and so on. It seems pathetic, but it's true. get over yourself rugby fans. And I hardly see the Southern soccer means, as the majority of federations call it football. And Rugby is by far a more dominant game in the south than any other area. basically, if you went to a certain places in Wellington, rugby would be referred to as crap and Football would be referred to as, Football.

Football is official, soccer is slang, as is Rugby is for Rugby Union, and League for Rugby League. The end of. CipherPixel (talk) 09:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - and i point you to [1]. Soccer is the most commonly used name, and should be kept as such. Football is confusing as it could refer to many, many sports. Soccer is just for ease of use. It may be called Football officially (since we seem to adopt everything from other countries anyway), but soccer is the more commonly used name. Metagraph comment 07:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Football, Soccer is an American term. --Doctor Bojangles (talk) 00:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment, Actually, the word Soccer is British English, not American English.--James Bond (talk) 09:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Technically, the word is in both dictionaries. And he said 'term' not 'word'. And the term used in Britain is FOotball, and the term used in USA is Soccer. And since New Zealand is part of the British Commonwealth, and the game is officially named Football in New Zealand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CipherPixel (talk • contribs) 05:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Others

• .

Median household income (again)

The statement:

As of 2006, New Zealand's median household income (PPP) was only 20% less than in the United States.

was referenced by a link to Median_household_income_in_Australia_and_New_Zealand, but a Wikipedia article cannot be used as a reference (Can't find policy on that at the moment). I've added the following calculation as a ref:

The median weekly household income in New Zealand in 2006 was NZ$1129 (ie NZ$58708 per annum) [2] The US median annual household income in 2006 was US$48201 [3] The exchange rate in mid June 2006 was 0.6217 [4]. US$48201/.6217 = NZ$77531. 58708/77531=0.757

I took the IRD exchange rate for mid June 2006; taking some other "official" exchange rate may make a significant difference. The result indicated the New Zealand median household income was just under 76% of the US one, so I changed the article to say if was 24% less.

Ideally, we'd quote a source which says in plain English that the NZ and US figures were such and such, in the same currency and at the same time. In the absence of such a source, is it valid to quote separate sources for each country, and a third source for the exchange rate, or is that original research?

Feel free to fix my logic errors, improve figures or sources, etc in the article.-gadfium 08:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Your logic is fine, but I do believe we should find a source that spells it out. This is basically OR—we should still keep what you have put for now. The exchange rate changes heaps though, so any value is going to change simply because of that. Would be nice if anyone knew of a source that made a comparison between the median incomes of both countries? Then we could just quote that as it'd be the best we could do. - Shudde ^talk 09:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears that my logic is not acceptable to the author of the statement, so I have removed the sentence until such time as we can reach an agreement on how to reference it here.-gadfium 19:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

Theres been some pretty persistant vandalism lately, and some pretty stupid edits. Maybe SP'ing the article could ease the vandalism? Matt (talk) 10:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there have been higher levels of vandalism than usual recently, but its usually caught pretty quickly. See the (attempted) discussion above at #Semi-protection. When Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Sighted versions is implemented, this problem should significantly diminish. However, that feature under various different names has been "coming soon" for about three years now.-gadfium 19:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism seems to be pretty much every edit in the last week or so, with few constructive edits. Althought it is caught quite quickly, i still think Semi Protecting the article would be a good idea. However, if anyone disagrees ill change my stance, however this article does get some pretty high exposure.

And to gadfium, i don't fully understand what that feature is suppost to do, or if its even working yet? Matt (talk) 12:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You are probably right Matt, and I don't think Sighted versions is going to be implemented on en wiki in a hurry. It's such a conservative project compared to the German one. - Shudde ^talk 12:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The exact implementation of sighted versions in the English Wikipedia is still under discussion. However, the main idea is that established editors (a pool larger than the group of admins and rollbackers, but smaller than the group of all autoconfirmed users) can mark a version of an article as "sighted" ie free from obvious vandalism. Anon users will see that version by default. This gives anons considerably less incentive to vandalise. Not all articles will have sighted versions, but I think this one would clearly benefit.

That the German Wikipedia has implemented Sighted versions is a very good sign that real progress is being made on getting it accepted here. The feature is in the software, it's a matter of policy, and as Shudde says, we're very conservative about making such policy changes.

If there's a general clamour for semi-protection of this article, I will protect it. However, vandals usually attack more than one article, so that won't stop the overall problem. If you find recent vandalism, please fix it, warn the vandal using one of the {{uw-vand}} templates, and check their contributions for any other recent edits they've made. Vandals with lots of escalating warnings get blocked. Vandals with few or no warnings generally don't, even if they have a long history.-gadfium 19:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Since flagged/sighted revisions are still not implemented, and several anon vandalisms occur each day on this article, I have reluctantly semi-protected it.-gadfium 05:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism seems to have stopped, looked like semi-protecting did it. I dont think that it can be unprotected without the same sort of vandalism occuring.. but hopefully the sighted revisions are put in place soon. Metagraph comment 23:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Median household income and PPP

The median household income section has three core arguments:

1. That US incomes have decreased, which was verifiable from the reference

2. That New Zealand incomes have grown substantially over the last eight years. Not only is this verifiable from Statistics New Zealand, but also endorsed by Michael Cullen (Finance minister) when he used arguments from the Wikipedia article Median household income in Australia and New Zealand to reassure New Zealanders that we can survive a downturn (note the debt figure has been changed from 20% after his speech). [5]

3. The combination has allowed New Zealand to close the income gap.

Gadfium, I am not trying to mislead you. PPP is not the current exchange rate. Median household income is not income inequality. This is clearly not your area of expertise, so it's difficult to communicate, but do you think the Minister of Finance would quote information from Median household income in Australia and New Zealand if it were in any way false?Badenoch (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I never believed you were attempting to mislead anyone, and I do not doubt the accuracy of your figures. I apologise if I have in any way given that impression. My change to the figure of 20% was because the calculations I made indicated a slightly different figure, and I acknowledged that the actual figure would have considerable play.

However, every statement in Wikipedia should (ideally) be backed by a reliable source. Many articles come nowhere near this situation, but the New Zealand article is already fairly well referenced, and is an important article, so I am holding it to a higher standard than I do many articles.

We need a reliable source to back up the statement that the New Zealand MHI is within 20% of the United States. You cited another Wikipedia article, and that article cites a third. I was trying to put the sources together in a single paragraph. You have to show clearly to the non-specialised reader how the figure of 20% is arrived at. The best way to do so is to link to someone reliable giving the fact, or including it in a table. When two different sources give facts which can be combined to back up the statement, then we are straying into original research, which is much less acceptable in Wikipedia. When those different sources use different currencies, the problem is much worse.

You say that PPP is not the current exchange rate, which confuses me because I never thought the current exchange rate was relevant, but I used a historical exchange rate to try to compare the two different currencies at the approximate time that the sources give. Clearly, we cannot compare figures in two different currencies without using an exchange rate. If you have a single source giving the MHI in the same currency for the same time period for NZ and the US, that would be much more acceptable.

I am also confused when you say that Cullen has quoted the Wikipedia article. I see no such quotation in the Herald article you link to. Perhaps you mean he uses similar arguments. However, Wikipedia should not be putting forward its own arguments; we can only attribute such arguments to some reliable source.-gadfium 20:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

New Zealands median household income in US$(PPP) = NZ$58708/1.52[6] = US$38,623 You can work out the rest.

Cullen's speech borrows 5 concepts, to reassure the public:

1. That New Zealand is well positioned to survive a global downturn.

2. The debt has be reduced to 20% of GDP (since changed to 18.3%).

3. That New Zealand can deficit spend (lossen the books as he puts it).

4. That monetary policy (interest rates) can be eased if things deteriorate.

5. That household incomes have risen more than 25% in the last eight years.

When a Government uses information from a Wikipedia article it suggests that the article is of good quality and is relivant to New Zealander's.Badenoch (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you've got a figure of 1.52 which is authoritatively sourced and can be used to convert the NZ$ figure into US$. We still have three separate sources, but we're making progress. For convenience, I will reproduce the calculation here so others can examine it:

The median weekly household income in New Zealand in 2006 was NZ$1129 (ie NZ$58708 per annum).[7] The US median annual household income in 2006 was US$48201.[8] The OECD PPP for GDP for New Zealand was 1.52,[9] which can be used to convert the New Zealand figure into US$: NZ$58708/1.52 = US$38,623. We can see that 38623/48201=0.801, a difference between the country MWHI of 20%.

The question remains, is a calculation such as this, drawn from three separate sources, valid as a reference on Wikipedia?

You still are asserting that Cullen is getting his arguments from Wikipedia without any proof.-gadfium 22:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe such a calculation would be a valid reference. Let's put it this way, if we were to take the article to FAC with that statement there, it would be heavily criticised. We need to find a source stating that the median household income in NZ is 20% lower then the US, then we won't have a problem. - Shudde ^talk 01:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The wikipedia has an international audience, and simple comparisons are commonly made between countries to convey meaning (e.g. see the table in median household income). However if you don't want to make any comparisons, that's no problem. One can simply state the income in New Zealand dollars (from Statistics NZ) and the fast growth (from the Cullen speech). Another option would be to delete all mention of household income, but that would be pity since it is something that New Zealanders should be very pleased with [10]. Badenoch (talk) 05:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible merge?

I was just womdering if it would be wise to merge the 'geography' and 'climate' sections together and label it "geography and environment' or somthing along those lines because it seems redundant that there is a section just for small pice of info climate. Taifarious1 05:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I see that the articles on Australia, United Kingdom, United States and Canada all have climate and geography together in the same section. As a counter-example, Argentina has Climate as a subsection of a much larger Geography section. If you don't get any objections in the next few days, go ahead and merge them.-gadfium 19:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the general consensus among articles is that merging the 2 are more beneficial, so i have done so, but feel free to revert if you are dissatisfied Taifarious1 08:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Please add iw link

[[wuu:纽齐朗特]] -- its only a stub at the moment, & the 25th Asian language page I think.

Done.-gadfium 08:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Rat dating

New radio carbon dating indicates : The pacific rat was introduced to NZ in 1280+- and this is the time when the first settlers reached NZ. doi:10.1073/pnas.0801507105--Stone (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Would be good to source this. Metagraph 04:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Stone did source it, but made a typo in the ref, which I've fixed.-gadfium 05:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Biodiversity

If New Zealand has land turtles, what are they? If it doesn't, why does my edit to that effect keep getting reverted? It's factual, it's relevant to the Biodiversity section, and it's certainly not original research — please tell me what's wrong with it. —NakedCelt (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You haven't shown the relevance to the section.-gadfium 01:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The section is about New Zealand's biodiversity. The statement I've tried to add is a fact about New Zealand's biodiversity, with significance equal, as far as I can tell, to statements already accepted. The statement "New Zealand has no snakes" has been retained; I imagine because it's a significant fact about New Zealand's biodiversity, in that most land masses do have snakes. The absence of land turtles from New Zealand is also a significant fact about New Zealand's biodiversity in that most land masses do have land turtles. The only difference I can see is that it happens to be a less remarked-upon fact that New Zealand has no land turtles than that it has no snakes, but surely an encyclopedia is not only there to recirculate much-remarked-upon facts. Honestly, I'm having serious trouble seeing what's not clear about this. —NakedCelt (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing remarkable about not having a particular group of animals, unless that group is in almost every other country. We also don't state that polar bears are not found in New Zealand outside of zoos. Snakes are in almost every other country, so it is unusual that New Zealand doesn't have any. Indeed, we don't have any even in zoos.-gadfium 20:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Land turtles are in almost every other country. It is unusual that New Zealand doesn't have any. I don't think zoos and pet shops count as part of our biodiversity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NakedCelt (talk • contribs) 08:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact, according to no more obscure a source than the Reader's Digest Encyclopaedia of Animals, turtles and snakes have pretty much the same distribution worldwide, except that snakes have not colonized quite so much of the oceans. The absence of land turtles is therefore just as significant as the absence of snakes for New Zealand biodiversity. Please revert the deletion of my edit. —NakedCelt (talk) 03:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you link to an online source which explains why their absence in New Zealand is notable?-gadfium 00:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That part of the biodiversity section at the moment does seem to be unduly biased towards 'none of our fauna is likely to kill you' rather than biological unusualness. --Helenalex (talk) 08:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, native fauna maybe. Just watch out for pitbull terriers, bull mastiffs and staffordshire bull terriers. ^rossnixon 02:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Demography

The percentages for which religion people are affiliated with do not add up. I have looked exact at the census data, and calculated that about 6.2% did not respond. I think this should be included because then it can also be seen there is an overlap between people associated with "other" religions and Cristian religions. Smithspa (talk) 07:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The current ethnicity percentages are incorrect, it says 69.8% European (British), 7.9% Maori, 5.7% Asian, 4.4% Pacific Isdr, 0.5% other, 7.8% Multiracial, 3.8% unspecified. According to the last census its more like 73% European, 14% Maori & 7% Asian (the others are correct). However there is no multiracial category. (12/11/08)

The ethnic figures that were in the infobox seem to be the CIA's attempt to shoehorn 2001 census figures into a racial classification (hence the multiracial bit). That's dubious in itself, and equating European with British is even more unusual. I've replaced them with figures from the Demography section. -- Avenue (talk) 08:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Healthcare

There's no mention of healthcare here... Ged3000 (talk) 10:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think many country articles mention healthcare. It isn't practical for a country article to cover every aspect of life and government of a country - it would become unwieldy.

Perhaps you mean that there isn't a single article on Healthcare in New Zealand. You can see the articles relating to this in Category:Healthcare in New Zealand. I agree that an overview article would be useful, perhaps modelled on Healthcare in the United Kingdom, Healthcare in Ireland, or Health care in Australia. You're welcome to start such an article yourself, or you can add it to Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Requested articles.-gadfium 20:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

History

I find it surprising that no mention is made of the Declaration of Independence of New Zealand in 1835. In my opinion, it deserves a mention. Any thoughts? Jtravers (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It is mentioned at History of New Zealand, and in more specialised articles such as Independence of New Zealand. The History section of this article is reduced in length and detail because this article is an overview of the whole country. The section should be a summary of the History of New Zealand article. It covers the whole of New Zealand history in seven paragraphs, and three of these deal with the 19th century, which I think is adequate treatment.-gadfium 19:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The Maori reached the Chatham Islands on November 19, 1835. Shortly after that, they massacred the indigenous hunter-gatherers, the Moriori people. "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond, Chapter 2 (Vintage 1998)210.196.89.206 (talk) 09:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

IPA/Pronunciation

Why does this article and .ogg soundclip give the *American* pronunciation of New Zealand [ˈnu ˈzilənd] with no acknowledgement of the pronunciation [ˈnju ˈzilənd] used by New Zealanders? (And most other Commonwealth countries for that matter.) Muzilon (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I am removing it from the article. If anyone objects they can state here why we should have American accent/pronunciation. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not just substitute the New Zealand IPA and record an ogg soundclip to replace the previous one?-gadfium 09:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Now, if I knew how to, I would. But......Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files. I'd do it, but I'm not a New Zealander and have a distinct accent.-gadfium 23:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Summer?

The article says right now that it is summer! it is WINTER! also, our anthem is God Defend New Zealand as far as i know. not god save the queen! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bexpepe (talk • contribs) 23:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you are looking at the time zone information in the infobox. This says that during summer, the time zone changes, and gives the approximate dates when this happens.

For the anthem, see the footnote at the bottom of the infobox. Both are official anthems.-gadfium 23:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afghan British (contains proposal for deletion of the New Zealander British article). Badagnani (talk) 04:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

economics - ease of doing business

Suggest adding a mention in the Economy section on NZ's second ranking by the World Bank for "ease of doing business"? See /wiki/Ease_of_Doing_Business_Index Twilding (talk) 09:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

That would probably belong at International rankings of New Zealand.-gadfium 09:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Tax ?

I don't really see the point of this section. Just random information about an area of government. You could write the same paragraph on just about anything else eg:

Immigration in New Zealand is regulated by the Department of immigration on behalf of the New Zealand government. Immigration regulations cover both short-term and permanent migrants as well as diplomatic and student visitors. All visitors or immigrants to New Zealand are subject to these regulations. In 2005-06 the immigration Dept had a budget of $150m. Quotas for immigration and regulations vary from year to year.

Oh and I think the bit about New Zealand residents are liable for tax on their worldwide taxable income is wrong. I'm in favour of removing the wrole section as it doesn't contribute to the article. - SimonLyall (talk) 06:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favour of removing the wording, thoughts? - SimonLyall (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy for the section to be removed. Might it be worthwhile adding a link to Taxation in New Zealand to Template:New Zealand topics instead?-gadfium 02:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That image

I removed the image of Clark that User:Rossnixon uploaded to Wikipedia and inserted in this article earlier today. As he says on his talk page that he is a Christian, I have told him it was not Christian-like of him to insert an image that could be considered to denigrate her, and suggested he try reading Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons which says material (including images) requires a high degree of sensitivity. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It was also uploaded under fair use rationale, which I wouldn't have thought applied since there are already free pics of her on Wikipedia. --Helenalex (talk) 04:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection back?

I count around 21 instances of vandalism in the 10 days since protection was removed. Can we perhaps get at least semi-protection back? - SimonLyall (talk) 06:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I reluctantly favour semi-protection for this article. Anyone opposed?-gadfium 07:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing school holidays (9 days to go). Are they from NZ IP addresses? ^rossnixon 01:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection has been restored.-gadfium 08:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Question about grammar

How would I say about something done in New Zealand, eg. game? "X (New Zealandish game)"? "X (New Zealander game)"? "X (Kiwish game)"? "X (Kiwi game)"? Or in other way? Kubek15 ^{(Sign!) (Contribs) (UBX)} 13:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

To be formal, say "x is a popular New Zealand game". To be informal, say "x is a popular Kiwi game". The term "kiwi" is not offensive and can be used for both people and New Zealand-related things such as games. New Zealander is only used for people, e.g. "y is a New Zealander" or "y is a kiwi". New Zealandish or Kiwish are never used.--118.93.122.2 (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I would add that 'Kiwi' with a capital K means a person while with a small k it means the bird, but it would generally be too informal for Wikipedia anyway. The format for page titles would be "X (New Zealand game)". --Helenalex (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently there is an archaic term Zelanian which is also acceptable, though other than in one musty old dictionary i've never seen (or heard) it used. For a list of such adjectival forms, BTW, see List of adjectival and demonymic forms of place names. Grutness...wha? 23:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Official Languages

I suggest the words (de facto) next to 'English' in the Official Languages section of the fact box. Maori and NZ Sign language are official languages under the The Maori Language Act and the New Zealand Sign Language Act respectively, whereas no statute seems to proclaim NZ English an official language, even though it is by far the most widely used. Comments? Cheers, GintyFrench|^(talk!) 12:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If you put (de facto) next to 'English', then you would need to put (de jure) next to both 'Māori' and 'NZ Sign Language'. Unecessary overkill IMMHO. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Mmmmm, point noted, but the section is Official Languages, is it technichally an official language if it's not de jure? Official languages isn't crystal clear on his point, but seems to suggest it's not. I'm not trying to be pedantic, but I think it is an interesting point to raise that the most widely spoken language is the only one not enshrined in law (even if those laws are written in English). GintyFrench|^(talk!) 02:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Add link to MadeFromNewZealand.com

Is someone able to add the following to the external links section:

• MadeFromNewZealand.com An open global community of New Zealand businesses and entrepreneurs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reganjcunliffe (talk • contribs) 02:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that would be a suitable link. See WP:EL.-gadfium 05:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The World "Fact" Book map needs amendment

Resolved

The map, reputedly of major cities and towns in NZ, shows Greymouth, but not Nelson or Whangarei which both have pops over 50,000. Also, the name of the island south of Foveaux Straight is Stewart Island/Rakiura, not Stewart Island and we should be accurate. I don't have access to Photoshop at the moment, or I'd deal with it. Someone want to volunteer? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Having just been making 70-odd election maps, I have an outline template open in Photoshop now, so I guess I could tackle it. dramatic (talk) 07:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Prime Minister

John Key is being sworn in now. This Needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CCDesign (talk • contribs) 22:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Helen Clark is still Prime Minister until the Governor-General appoints a new Prime Minister. The earliest that this is likely to happen is tomorrow morning I'd guess. Ben Arnold (talk) 10:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I've read the relevant bits of the Cabinet Manual and it seems to go like this:

• Helen Clark is Prime Minister, but in a caretaker capacity, until she asks the Governor-General to accept her resignation once the Key ministry has been sworn in

• John Key is not Prime Minister-designate at the moment. By my reading he needs to sort out his coalition arrangements first. At the moment he is merely presumptive Prime Minister-designate.

• Between the time John key has sorted out his coalition arrangements and the time he and his ministry gets sworn in he is Prime Minister-designate.

• Once he's sworn in, Helen Clark will ask the Governor-General to accept her and her ministry's resignations and that will be that.

Ben Arnold (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

According the the Labour Part website, the leader of the governing party is the Prime Minister. Therefore Phil Goff is now PM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.154.144.40 (talk) 09:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No. -Rrius (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You should write to correct them. The Prime Minister is appointed by warrant from the Governor-General, not by the Labour Party website.[11] Ben Arnold (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Not that I'm suggesting we put this up, but if Goff became Labour leader before Key got sworn in, doesn't that technically mean he was PM for a little while? --Helenalex (talk) 04:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

No, because the PM is appointed by the Governor General, and is not simply the leader of the majority party (or in this case, of the party which had a plurality prior to the recent election)-gadfium 05:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Google Snippet

When I googled this page, the snippet didn't correspond to anything on this page. It read,

New Zealand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hyperlinked encyclopedia article covers the country's history, government and politics, geography, economy, demographics, language and culture.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand - 260k - Cached - Similar pages

I've never seen this happen with any other article on Wikipedia. Two questions, with the first having two parts. 1a) Why is this happening? 1b) Who did this? 2) Isn't serving different pages to Google versus a human against Google's TOS? (Yes it is.) 03:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.249.108.250 (talk)

Three questions:

1. What search string gave you that result?
2. What makes you think that the explanatory text you reported was provided by Wikipedia rather than Google?
3. What makes you think that this page is where violations of Google's TOS are discussed?

-Rrius (talk) 03:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Google gets its descriptions from more than one source. I don't know the details, but ask at the help desk if you want to know more.-gadfium 05:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting question. For what it's worth, France & Mexico came up with similar specially worded introductions in Google, but United States of America simply came up with the first lines of the article. GrahamBould (talk) 09:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Corruption

Should NZs 2nd lowest corruption index be in the politics section?

Such statistics go in the article International rankings of New Zealand, which is linked to from the "See also" section of this article. I don't think there's much value in duplicating them here, and the downside is that the two articles will get out of sync.-gadfium 01:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Crown copyright

Does NZ have a similar governmental-works-are-public-domain provision as a number of other nations? I ask because I'd like to replace the image of the passport over at the NZ passport page with a better one off the internet, but since I am not sure of the copyright status I can't. If anyone clarified whether the passport cover falls under the public domain per some law (it may anyway, given the simplicity of all elements bar the coat of arms which is already public domain) I'd be grateful. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 03:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand government works are under different provisions of copyright to private ones, but the provisions are stricter and certainly not public domain. See Crown copyright#New Zealand.-gadfium

Ah, shame. Could I replace the current image there with the new one and claim fair use? I find the assertion that the image currently on the page is Creative Commons-licensed highly dubious. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 05:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to ask about this at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.-gadfium 05:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Aoetera

How can there be no reference at all to Aoetera, what Maori call their New Zealand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.23.14 (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

See the second sentence of the article, and also the first paragraph of the "Etymology" section. We also have an article Aotearoa.-gadfium 08:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sand flies

Sand flies are widespread and can negatively impact the hiking and camping experiences.125.237.143.155 (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Widespread? Don't know about that. Some parts of South Island maybe? Whatever, I'd prefer slopping on a bit of lotion to deter sandflies any day to constantly watching out for snakes, deadly poisonous spiders, bull ants and other bities, crocodiles, sharks, blue ring octopus, deadly jellyfish etc that our neighbours over the ditch have to avoid, plus their darling hordes of blowies that swarm around no matter where you are on a tramp. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

New Plymouth named one of best places in the world to live.

http://www.newzealand.com/travel/media/press-releases/2008/11/tourismnews_newplymouthtopsliveablecommunities_pressrelease.cfm

I really only registered to bring this to someones attention, and I didn't want to edit the original article as I'm not exactly experienced when it comes to that.

So basically, I'm hoping someone will add that to the New Zealand article at some point.

Vanilla Sky3267 (talk) 05:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It's already in the New Plymouth article. It wouldn't really fit in here, which is about the whole country, and is already rather long.-gadfium 06:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Moriori?

It says the Maori are the indigenous people of New Zealand, but isn't it true that the Moriori were on at least the south island maybe at the same time, if not earlier before being driven towards Chatham Islands?

It's not like i'm trying to refute Maori history, i've lived here off and on in the last ten years and wanted to clarify if this was something that should or alreay has been in the article.XxReikoxX - The Visual Asia Geek (talk) 09:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That theory has been discredited for lack of evidence. Moriori are now beleived to have arrived directly, or to be descended from Ngai Tahu with whose dialect their language has similarities. - [12]. dramatic (talk) 10:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Population Density

Sidebar says 204th, list it links to says 201st. Might want to update that. 88.144.10.150 (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Economic freedom in intro

The Heritage Foundation is a notoriously pro-US/pro-capitalist slanted think tank. IMO the link should go, or at least be introduced with "The Hertiage Foundation asserts that..." Because "pro-life" and "pro-choice" groups are the best unbiased sources of information about abortion, am I right? 118.90.41.39 (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it really needs to be in the lede, but the New Zealand economy is unusual because it has such an emphasis on free trade, and is relatively open to foreign investment. We could also or instead cite the World Bank, which said in 2005 that NZ was the most business-friendly country in the world, and in 2008 the second-most business-friendly country (taken from Economy of New Zealand, but I haven't actually checked the refs). It's not appropriate for the lede to go into whether these are good or bad policies. Would you like to suggest an alternative single-sentence plus ref to sum up the economy for the lede?-gadfium 23:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I've moved it down to the Economy section for now. It might be better to use the World Bank ranking, as gadfium suggests, even down there. We do need a brief summary of the economy in the lead section, but that sentence just presented one viewpoint, and a fairly controversial one at that, so I saw no reason to wait for a replacement. -- Avenue (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously none of us have anything against mentioning the economy in principle, I was just referring to the authors of the source. World Bank sounds good. Making it more general, like "New Zealand is considered to be economically free by [source]" (how it is now) is ok. If appropriate sources can be found, mentioning moves towards the free market (agriculture reform, privatizations, etc) may still have a place at the top of the article. 118.90.41.39 (talk) 09:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)