This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Numismatics articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Why is the table showing 200%?220.127.116.11 (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not a commerce expert, but if I were to hazard a guess I'd say it's a statistical consequence of the fact that currency transactions feature two currencies, the one given and the one recieved. The daily share percentage is still factored out of 100%, but because all trades of the American dollar necessarily involve another currency, its presence in 87% of all transactions involves numerous other currencies totalling 87%. I can't think of how to explain it more than that; there's probably a really great analogy to illustrate the concept but I'm not versed enough to think of it. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 11:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
A script of a fictional TV series is used as a factual basis. A great example of why Wikipedia is a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 07:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Calling it a "fictional" TV series is a gross misrepresentation of what Pioneer House is. It is a documentative show that uses a reality format to examine and educate on colonial New Zealand society through the experiences of a modern family. You make it sound as if the article were doing something akin to citing Game of Thrones in a medieval article, when in fact the show possesses a clear intent to reproduce its subject manner with historical accuracy. It's obviously not of the same standard as a peer-reviewed journal article, but the fact that the entire point of the show is to provide the viewier with an historical insight into colonial New Zealand creates a base assumption that its claims are the product of at least elementary research. Denouncing it as a source simply because it is a television show is a rather defiant example of ignorance.
To level a more specific criticism, your statement does not reflect the fact that the show employs a number of academic experts in achieving its goal of historical accuracy and educational value. Dr. Caroline Daley, an Associate Professor at the University of Auckland, is one of the foremost experts on early 20th century New Zealand and is a major cosultant of the show, but as you obviously haven't watched even two minutes into it, you would not know this. You also fail to take into account the difficulty of acquiring more ideal sources for the subject matter, as colonial New Zealand property values are not the subject of significant volumes of scholarly literature. In this case, citing a television series that desires to be historically representative, consults with academically recognised field experts, and has likely access to and reliance on archival documentation is an acceptable alternative, given that more authorative evidence is impossible. The article also clearly points out in text that the source for the information is a television show, which is a suitable disclaimer as to possible doubts of credibility.
If you have more specific examples of why you find fault in this citation or how it contributes to Wikipedia's comedic value, feel free to respond with an appropriate rebuttal. Otherwise, I think everybody would prefer that you kept your unsubstantiated and inflammatory declarations to yourself. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 10:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
As of October 2015, there are new $5 and $10 dollar notes in circulation which will eventually replace all the existing notes. Can someone upload some pics of the new notes? StuZealand (talk) 03:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)