|South Island has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Geography. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|WikiProject New Zealand||(Rated C-class, Top-importance)|
|WikiProject Islands||(Rated C-class)|
- 1 untitled
- 2 What is this flag doing on Wikipedia?
- 3 The Greenstone Water, The Greenstone Place
- 4 List of companies
- 5 South Island Contributions
- 6 South Island Virtual Presence Post
- 7 Maori Legend
- 8 Idiotic Wikipedia code turns fact into fallacy
- 9 South Island link at Dreamlike
- 10 This is sheer madness
- 11 Apparent copyright violation
- 12 Flags, logos and coats of arms...
- 13 Radio Stations section
- 14 Delisting media section
- 15 Fiords / Fjords
- 16 Museums
Would any native English speaker not say the South Island? I think it's normal grammar, just like North Sea, east coast, Western World etc.
- I believe there are a number of South Islands around the world (I have vague memories of seeing 37 quoted somewhere), but I suspect their inhabitants (if there are any) "live on South Island," whereas we live in the South Island. Koro Neil (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I've never heard or seen it called the South Island. It's always been South Island. -- Zoe
- This raises the question of where you're from. The only time the is ever omitted from the name of either island by New Zealanders is when it is being used attributively (like an adjective)—a delegation of South Island farmers. Koro Neil (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe I'm biased because I grew up on the South Island.
- Hmm, you're the first New Zealander I've come across who says on the South Island rather than in the South Island. Note robinp's last sentence just below. Koro Neil (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Zoe (above) may be the victim of slight confusion: Maps, and headings or tables, and adjectival expressions use "South Island"; whereas "the South Island" is used after a preposition or verb, eg I'm visiting the South Island, my mother lives in the South Island. :robinp 01:15, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
In NZ vernacular it's "the South Island" and "the North Island". (Just like some people would say they live in "the UK" or "the USA", even though they wouldn't address a letter that way.) Even though they are islands, the North and South islands are not small, like many Pacific islands, so saying you live "on the South Island" also sounds wrong in the vernacular. Maybe that's an unusual form for referring to an island, but that's just how it is. (Just like some people would say they live "in the UK" or "in the USA".)22.214.171.124 (talk) 07:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Which area figure is correct, the square mile or square kilometre? They do not equate by a country mile, um, country kilometre. Moriori 23:07, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Nelson (a cathedral city and with much more population) should be on that map if Greymouth is to stay.:robinp 21:06, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
TOWN LIST - before spending long adding to it, consider my query (of a few minutes ago) on the Talk: North Island page, partly reproduced here: "... we already have a page called List of towns in New Zealand, so maybe we should use it as the only long list, adding "SI" to the end of the (smaller number of) towns that are South Island?"
- robinp 21:21, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- that idea got some support and no disagreement in several weeks. So I'm attending to it slowly. THIS article should therefore stick to the biggies. :robinp 10:02, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
What is this flag doing on Wikipedia?
- It really bugs me too, It was inserted by User:Expatkiwi on October 12, so I left messages on his talk page here. I don't think his responses were compelling at all. Perhaps we should just delete the flag and see what happens, or seek further comment. The Rakiura flag in the Stewart Island/Rakiura article may be a different kettle of fish. Māori have the right by decree to "deface" the New Zealand flag by adding tribal names, but whether or not that makes the flag official, I have no idea. Note that the word Rakiura has been added to the NZ flag, but the words Te Wai Pounamu have been added to a flag which is not the NZ flag. Did you notice too that at that FOTW site, Pounamu was spelt PoEnamu. Amazing. Moriori 22:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I've removed the flags from the North Island, Stewart Island/Rakiura and South Island articles. If anyone thinks they are worth having in Wikipedia, perhaps they should go in a "Unofficial flags" section of List of New Zealand flags.-gadfium 00:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- An unofficial flags page has been created, that has the two island flag concepts illustrated on them, so chill. FYI, Moriori, While the Blue Ensign is in the Stewart Island Flag, the Red Ensign in the North Island concept and the White Ensign in the South Island concept are also official New Zealand flags (which considering the Maritime history of New Zealand, is entirely appropriate, in my humble opinion). Expatkiwi 19:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- FYI the white ensign identifies a branch of our armed services (navy), and definitely not a geographic entity. Same for the air force ensign, and red ensign (merchant shipping). Moriori 21:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
The Greenstone Water, The Greenstone Place
These are slightly awkward translations of the Māori equivalents. They really translate as 'the water(s) of greenstone' and 'the place of greenstone.' Just for the record. Kahuroa 00:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the South Island independence reference because it has no references, no one in the South Island seeks independence, and it basically creates an unrealistic, fictional, over the top impression of something that doesn't exist.
List of companies
The list of companies seems like a problematic list. First there is no definition of what companies qualify to be noted in the list, and second the list would be absolutely huge (and incorrect) if an attempt was made to list every company either founded or operating in the south island. Propose delete list of companies. (If not delete, then at least qualify what sort of company can make the list) --Zaf(t) 12:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. The list should be removed unless someone is willing to put the effort into setting up a qualification. Suitable qualifications might be "South Island-based Companies in the NZX50" or "South Island-based companies with an annual turnover > NZ$100 million". The latter requires an easy way to get turnover figures for each company. If anyone knows of a good place to get these figures online I'm interested, since the List of New Zealand companies has a similar problem of needing to be qualified.-gadfium 18:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that the following is a fair and workable criteria for the List of South Island Companies. To qualify a company must 1) have its registered office in the South Island; 2) a majority of its shareholders (51% or greater) must reside in the South Island; and 3) it must be listed on the NZX or have an annual revenue of greater than NZ$100 million. Son of Zealandia (talk) 08:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- That sounds very reasonable. You could probably drop criteria 2, since I don't think it's easy to find out where most shareholders reside.-gadfium 19:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
The information required to validate criteria 2 is freely available through the NZ Companies Office website. Criteria 3 will be more difficult to confirm. Son of Zealandia (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
South Island Contributions
It disappointments me that so many contributions to either the South Island or South Island Independence pages are scrutinised by Auckland based administrators who seem to be determined to halt any attempts by South Islanders to express their sub-national pride. Surely the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide a source of information to people? How can limiting the amount of information available be of any benefit to anyone. Yes, the List of New Zealand companies will over time grow. And as it grows then it will need to be modified and presented in a better way. Until then why not encourage people to contribute to its growth. Son of Zealandia 02:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
South Island Virtual Presence Post
The external link to the South Island Virtual Presence Post is useful in that it provides further links, information and news relating to the South Island. As it is a government sponsored site I think it is a useful resource.Son of Zealandia 04:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's rarely updated. For South Island news, surely linking to the Otago Daily Times and The Press would be more appropriate.-gadfium 04:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The version given here is a North Island Māori one. In the south, it was "the canoe of Aoraki"—Te Waka a Aoraki, and Māui was a later visitor. In both accounts Māui stood on Kaikōura Peninsula and fished up the North Island. I'll see to this at some stage. Koro Neil (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Idiotic Wikipedia code turns fact into fallacy
In the mark-up, the statistics box says "ethnic groups". Why does this show up as "Indigenous people"? How do we get the Wikipedia powers that be to change this bizarre piece of coding? In an earlier version of this article, the editor had stated, correctly, "ethnic groups = Māori, European". This showed up, incorrectly, as "Indigenous people Māori, European", and a subsequent editor quite reasonably re-edited it to "ethnic groups = Māori", so that it would read, "Indigenous people Māori". Less reasonably, s/he pointed out the previous editor's "error" in the edit summary.
- I understand your puzzlement, but this would be better raised at Template talk:Infobox Islands, where you might attract the attention of those who maintain this template.-gadfium 06:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I do not understand why this link was deleted ? It is a good unbias site containing information on the South Island. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 05:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- It was deleted because:
- The link doesn't work - it gives me a 404 Not Found error. Perhaps you mistyped it. I did look briefly at the site to see what the intended page might have been.
- At  the site explains that it is a site about someone's travel experiences. This might make it a good link on a web directory. Wikipedia is not a web directory, and we do not want links to the hundred of such pages where people describe their travel.
- Hope this helps.-gadfium 06:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- I found the link you meant. It is a general page on aspects of the history of the South Island. Again, there are hundreds of such pages, and this one is repeating information readily found in many much more authoritative sources. It is much better that we include the information here, with references to those authoritative sources, than send readers to a site with contents we have not verified.-gadfium 07:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
This is sheer madness
The South Island has always been merely a geographical rather than a political or administrative or even a separate cultural entity. It is ridiculous to divide the section into politics, religion, culture, etc when you find there is no such thing in the article on the North Island.
I won't recant what I have said here even if you native South Islanders start issuing death threats.--JNZ (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've struck an inflammatory comment above. Please discuss the content of the article in a productive manner.-gadfium 08:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
This discussion topic should be deleted as the user JNZ clearly has an agenda outside of Wikipedia. While he complains that the article on the South Island is unnecessary, he himself advocates a more depth article on the City of Auckland through the Wiki Project Auckland. As for his comments relating to death threats, well they just reflect how immature the person in question is. Having these type of comments on Wikipedia only serve to devalue its purpose. Please have them deleted ASAP !
- I restored the comment without reading through to the end, certainly do without the last part. Some of the article appeared to be written with a "South Island independence" bias, probably in breach of NPOV and a fringe viewpoint. XLerate (talk) 06:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The article is written by people who are proud of their homeland and who wish to share our history and culture with others. Unfortunately not everyone believes the lies that most politicans and historians preach to us !
Apparent copyright violation
The entire section on glaciers seemed to be a lightly reworded copy of selected parts of this Te Ara page, so I've removed it. (See WP:COPYVIO.) It was added by 188.8.131.52 in August 2009: diff. -- Avenue (talk) 13:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've now replaced it with text from Glaciers of New Zealand. -- Avenue (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Flags, logos and coats of arms...
Sorry 184.108.40.206, but having these in the table doesn't work for me either, just adding busy-ness to the table. Plus: (1) The "Regional" column results in mass duplication; (2) The official coats of arm are in fact seldom used now - eg Christchurch. Snori (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Radio Stations section
Delisting media section
In an optimistic attempt to start delisting sections of this article, I've culled back the media section considerably. The previous version of the article can be viewed here, and if someone believes it should be split of into its own list or article then feel free (I don't which is why I didn't do it myself). Hope I havn't stepped on anyone's toes here, but thought someone should get the delisting process going. - Shudde talk 13:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Fiords / Fjords
Given that this article acknowledges that the correct spelling in New Zealand is 'fiord' and not 'fjord' (as it is in the rest of the world), does it not follow that all other instances of the word in this article should also use the spelling 'fiord'? I understand that Wikipedia is intended for a global audience, but given that this is an article about New Zealand, surely New Zealand spellings should be used. Given that it is already acknowledged that we use a different spelling, it shouldn't create any confusion for readers. Thoughts?Its-mrb (talk) 07:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
We should work to define what we should include in the museums list. Some seem to be more appropriate than others. Should major art galleries be allowed? <- I`ll answer my own question here that there is a separate section already for that.