Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand/Archive 1

Feel very free to discuss here how you want this project to evolve and to update the main page . I've just done the initial bit on what I think we should cover. Other ideas amd opinions are very welcome. SimonLyall 12:01, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Polishing the literary references

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm keen to dedicate some of my miniscule amounts of free time to improving the NZ coverage here. My speciality is NZ linguistics and literature (if I can find the time I'd like to write articles on F. E. Maning, George Leitch, and other 19th century NZ authors), although I'm also happy to contribute, copyedit, or wikify any other articles as they come up.

I'm currently doing some minor categorization work between the Category:New_Zealand_writers and New_Zealand_literature pages.

edit: oops, my mistake, there's already a most comprehensive article on F. E. Maning up. Better go create a redirect page...

Ziggurat 00:34, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Welcome Ziggurat. As you can see this project is just getting off the ground. Feel very free to work on whatever fancies you. There is so much to do right now. If you spot articles that you think need work then please list them on the project page so others can find them. Also if you have time please add the births, deaths and major events of writers you add to Timeline of New Zealand history. SimonLyall 11:56, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Iwi extensions

I'm not enough of an expert to add this, but can anyone create some pages describing the various iwi of NZ? It seems like a significant gap to me (one of many, of course!). Some good starting points could be the list of iwi on the Maori Wikipedia (mi:Rārangi_iwi) and this PDF map: [1].

Ziggurat 07:53, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What is happening?

The edit history indicates that I changed the "Geogaphy" header to ",®|,3Taphy===". I did not. What is happening? Moriori 08:41, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

cosmic rays maybe. Corrupt memory on your machine, could be anything. As long as it doesn't happen too often (like more than once in a 1000 edits) it's probably not worth worrying about. SimonLyall 10:28, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Same thing happens on mine every 100-200 edits or so. Always with the first few characters of whatever section I'm editing. Worth double-checking every time. Grutness|^hello?

12:44, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Territorial Authorities of New Zealand

The {{Trritorial Authorities of new Zealand}} template is looking increasingly like an arse-about-face category, dumping a lot of content into the article (more than the actual article itself in some cases) rather than centralising it. What do you think about doing away with it and replacing it with a like-named category? Categories are well established now and I think people will understand that if they follow the category link they will get links to all the sibling authorities. dramatic 23:01, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What, you mean like Category:Territorial Authorities of New Zealand? It's been around a while... I think the template is a reasonable thing to keep, although I wonder if we could save space in articles by having two templates, one for each main island, and just use the appropriate one each time. [[User:Grutness|Grutness ^talk

]] 12:47, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NZ Geography categories

Well, after a month and a half strapped to the computer, I think I've got a fairly rationalised set of categories up and running for New Zealand geography now. Every article I've dealt with I've tried to give two categories to (minimum- some have required more). One of these two is a location (there are 17 different parts of the country each with a subcategory in Category: Locations in New Zealand, mainly, but not completely, agreeing with territorial regions). The other category is a type. All of the "type" categories are subcategories of Category: New Zealand geography, and are things like Cities and towns, rivers, lakes, mountains etc. There are a handful of places that don't seem to logically fall into a "type", and they might need new categories (New Zealand plains? New Zealand caves?), but the system seems to work very nicely for about 98% of the articles. Comments, suggestions, bouquets, and abuse are, of course, welcomed! Grutness|^hello? 12:55, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Note that the main geography category is now Category:Geography of New Zealand to maintain naming consistency with this category of other countries. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#General_Category:Landforms_tidy-up for discussion. RedWolf 03:41, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Kiwi-stub

There is now a specific stub template for New Zealand stubs - {{kiwi-stub}}. It will put NZ related stub articles in their own category within the Category:New Zealand and will add a rather dopey looking hand-drawn kiwi by yours truly to the message. Grutness|^hello? 02:47, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I note there is also now a {{NZ-geo-stub}} for New Zealand places (I didn't make it, but it should be reported here! Grutness|^hello?

New Zealand news and current events

The following requires regular input from the New Zealand Wikipedean community:

Wikinews - a new wiki for open source news articles.
Current events - linked from the Wikipedia Main page.

Since the New Zealand Wikipedian community is small I guess we should concentrate on major items or our individual specialty fields. Alan Liefting 08:14, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Moving New Zealand project

I have moved the WikiProject according to the regular standard naming convention of most WikiProjects. Please excuse the interruption. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:58, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moving info to Wikiportal

Given that the missing pages section of the project page is now duplicated at Wikiportal New Zealand, is it time to remove it from this page? Or is it worth having it in both places, for the time being at least? Grutness...wha? 00:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary of NZ biography

I just did a search there to produce around 2700 names. How do people feel about listing all them on a page so we can work through them? Similar to how Australia and Canada have done it? - SimonLyall 12:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iwi Question

Are Waikato (iwi) (linked to in List of Maori iwi) and Tainui the same tribe? If not then what's the distinction? Michael King (in the Penguin History of NZ) mentions both but never clarifies the relationship. Is one a sub-tribe of the other? Is Waikato an old name for the Tainui? I'm hoping to clear up some of the iwi redlinks. Thanks, Ziggurat 01:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From my reading they're one and the same, with a possible distinction of the area (Waikato) and tribe (Tainui):

Barefootguru 05:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Super, thanks for that! I have created a redirect page for it. Ziggurat 01:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwi input needed on speedy delete candidate

Could kiwi editors please visit Liz Shaw NZ and/or Wikipedia:Pages for deletion/Liz shaw. Opinions required. Moriori 03:16, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Request moved from main page - the page in question was retained and is at Liz Shaw (New Zealand). Ziggurat 01:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've given it a trim, but it's still an article of fluff about nothing. Moriori 02:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two things, first of all must remember to log on - I notice someone using the same number as the one I get automatically given has been into the Liz Shaw NZ page and added something called "everyone loves some porn". No I dunno, I didn't want to open it on a uni computer. Actually, if it is a photo of who I think it is, I just really don't want to look. Having said that - while my opinion, like yours, is it's an article about complete fluff and nothing, I'm uncomfortable making value judgements about importance (as distinct from accuracy). Where do we draw the line? Would we delete the article about Charlotte Dawson? Princess Diana? Ms Shaw may not have actually done anything but she has certainly developed a, um, profile at Auckland University. (Frightening thought - the potential of something like Wikipedia is that one day we may all have little articles about us in here).

Hi, umm, who is this Liz Shaw, i am a 39yr old born and bred Kiwi, never heard of her, never seen the ad on T.V., personally, I am in agreement with a deletion, but then that is just my Opinion. zZParagonZz

She's very marginal as an entity worthy of an article here. I had just barely heard of her when the deletion debate came up (and I'm a semi-regular reader of Craccum). The deletion debate is over. You could renominate the article, but there's probably little point. Just ignore it.-gadfium 22:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should we have a category for Order of New Zealand?

Our own Kiri Te Kanawa has a Category:Members of the Order of Australia tag on her article, but no Category:Members of the Order of New Zealand tag because there isn't one. There have been only 42 Orders of New Zealand awarded, which isn 't a large number, but do others feel as I do that it deserves its own category? Anyone know how to create it? Cheers. Moriori 01:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely should be, so I've created it as per Wikipedia:Categorization. I see that we're both adding the recipients right now! Ziggurat 23:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Ziggurat. Knew that if I started at the bottom you'd get the picture when we collided. Cheers. Moriori 23:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did! I had to stop for a moment to create an article on Miles Warren (he most unfortunately shares a name with a Spider Man villain and that had to be put to rights lest we accidentally confer NZ's highest honour on a fictional character), and when I got back saw that we were going to meet in the middle. Props for noticing the absence of a category in the first place, too! Ziggurat 23:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Missing articles from Dictionary of New Zealand Biography

Just a notice: I found the online Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, and though they don't list all the names anywhere, I still compiled a complete list from their contents, and wikified it. As you can see, New Zealanders aren't represented very well on Wikipedia (I've never been to NZ). We should probably keep the list under my user space, so that Wikipedia's mirror sites don't start copying it around. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-20 05:16

Someone painstakingly made these useful DNZB lists: -- A-M -- N-Z

~ Papeschr 08:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project notice

Hi all. I noticed a user place a notice on Talk:New Zealand encouraging editors to participate in the WikiProject New Zealand. In place of that, I've created {{WPNZ}} as a project notice to go on talk pages related to this project. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 08:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...like the portal? Grutness...wha? 09:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese tracking ship in Auckland

Just reading the Herald about Yuan Wang II tracking ship being in Auckland and was wondering if someone would be able to get a photo of it. The ships are used in tracking of the Chinese space program. I'm guessing this particular ship was between NZ and Tahiti for the Shenzhou 6 flight. Evil Monkey∴Hello 01:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I could get a photo, most easily for me on Saturday morning, when I'm going to Waiheke. Can you find out where it's docked and for how long? If it will depart before then, or it isn't close to the ferry terminal, I could make a trip into town tomorrow.-gadfium 02:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to Ports of Auckland the ship is scheduled to depart 27/10/2005 (which is today unfortunately) at 18:00. The Wharf given is "WYNYARD". Wish I'd seen the story sooner :-(. Evil Monkey∴Hello 02:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on it. I may as get get photos of the ship sailing as well as docked.-gadfium 03:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See commons:Category:Yuan Wang 2. I have more photos than this, but unfortunately none of the other side of the ship. Let me know if you want close ups of any particular part of the ship.-gadfium 07:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. I should go and write an article on the ships now. Evil Monkey∴Hello 07:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go - Yuanwang. I'm not sure what the exact article title should be, but this will do for now. Evil Monkey∴Hello 20:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Te Papa image still needed?

Te Papa is listed as needing an image, but there’s already a nice pic in the article (under creative commons). Is it just that this page hasn’t been updated? Barefootguru 19:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I requested such an image on P:NZ, and maybe someone copied the request here. I removed the request from P:NZ when an image was added, but didn't think to look here. I've now updated this page with the other requests from the portal page, and I'll try to keep them more in sync.-gadfium 21:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a night shot, and I have a range of images that I would be happy to gift for the purpose. --Mozasaur 18:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Eden is irregular

Mount Eden - for some reason this article does not have ", New Zealand" on the end (compare with Three Kings, New Zealand, Epsom, New Zealand). I have started a vote for movement (account not old enough to move apparently!). Probably should of just come here from the start and asked one of you to move it. So can you? --BakugekiNZ 22:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it need disamb? There are no other Mount Eden's on Wiki. I'd say leave it as is until/unless another Mount Eden comes along. Moriori 23:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the naming guidelines for New Zealand. The "irregular" ones are Epsom and Three Kings, and they are that way for a reason. They have a disambiguated name because there are other places of that name in the world. There is no other Mount Eden (or certainly no other one with a Wikipedia article). The same applies throughout New Zealand's geography articles, which is why we have articles on Milton, New Zealand, Roxburgh, New Zealand, and Hamilton, New Zealand, but also Tauranga, Otira and Taumarunui. Grutness...wha? 00:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also One Tree Hill (see the disambig page for info why) Nil Einne 14:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helengrad

NZ input needed for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Helengrad. Cheers! Ziggurat 03:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Māori language to Maori language

There is a proposal to move Māori language to Maori language. Proposal is at Talk:Māori language. Please add to the debate. --GeLuxe 23:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macrons

I looked in the archive and found a debate about macron use. It seems to have been left unresolved. Let me know if that's not true.

I hold the following to be true:

the English Wikipedia uses English names and correct English spelling
correct English spelling in the context of New Zealand articles means correct NZE spelling
correct spelling is still primarily defined by authoritative sources
many authoritative sources use diacritics in the spelling of English words borrowed from other languages (e.g. café)
the primary reason that Māori words have historically not been spelled with macrons is that it was technically difficult to render macrons
it is now technically trivial to render macrons
New Zealand authoritative sources are now using macrons in the spelling of words borrowed from Māori

So my conclusion is that the "correct" New Zealand English spelling for a large number of words borrowed from Māori is to use the macron. Since there are no technical hurdles in Wikipedia, we should use the macron.

In the archive someone argued that some words should not be written with macrons because they had been adopted more fully into English. The suggestion was that flora, fauna and placenames, where there was no English equivalent.

That's one dividing line, but I can think of two others:

Use as a guideline recent Government publications that have been through a formal editing process (there are a lot of Government publications that use a macron when spelling the word Māori).
If a word has taken on a substantially new meaning in English that it didn't have in Māori, then discard the macrons.

Ben Arnold 00:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the previous discussion:

Wikipedia:New_Zealand_Wikipedians'_notice_board/Archive_1#Should_Articles_Be_Using_Macrons -- Avenue 01:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And this is another that is relevant. Moriori 01:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben, I agree that our articles should reflect NZ English usage. However your position on what's "correct" seems arguable to me. I don't believe that all authoritative sources currently use macros exclusively, and I think we should aim to follow typical usage, not lead it.

Your analogy with diacritics in words from other languages cuts both ways. For example, we don't follow the French spelling of rôle and général.

I support the positions taken by Vardion and Nurg in the previous discussion. Vardion said:

Personally, I would not support the universal use of macrons. While macrons may be correct in Maori, they're not correct in English, and that's what we're meant to be using. When I say, for example, "katipo", I do not actually see myself as speaking Maori — I'm just using an English word derived from a Maori one (katipō).

And Nurg proposed that:

English words borrowed from Maori should not have macrons (in article titles or the main text of articles).
Maori words that have not been adopted into English, and phrases of Maori, should have macrons and should be in italics (as per the Manual of Style).
Where the article title or synonyms for it have been borrowed from Maori and where the original Maori has long vowels, the Maori form of the word should be given with macrons and in italics as part of the body of the article, usually near the top. For example, see kaka, kakapo, kereru, kohanga reo, tui (bird).

I hope I have not done too much violence to their positions by quoting them out of context. The usage in some of Nurg's example articles has since changed, e.g. Kākā. (I've just been having a debate with Moriori there about this point.) -- Avenue 01:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents: I am a scientist (handing in my PhD thesis in about a week), and I have been struggling with this issue in my own work. I have eventually come to the conclusion that macrons should be used, as it is part of New Zealand English, and I consider the macron the "correct spelling". I just found this link [2] (Te Ara) that uses macrons in pōhutukawa and kōwhai -- Onco_p53 03:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, my stance is similar to those points attributed to Nurg above. This is an English Wikipedia, and in general English uses, words which are of Maori origin are not used with macrons. They do, of course, retain the macron when used within a Maori context. As such, it makes sense for us to use the non-macron forms in the titles of articles, but also to give the "true" Maori form in italic form within the article. A further point worth considering is that the majority of users of the English language Wikipedia will not be aware of the use of the macron, and won't have a clue how to go about typing a macron when searching for an article. For the ease of use of Wikipedia, the un-macronned form is a good thing (with posibly redirects from the macronned versions). Grutness...wha? 04:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you make valid points, I was really just commenting on my personal usage, and that of a few of my colleagues working on native plants. I think everyone should be able to agree that the macron form (if applicable) should appear somewhere in the article. Although it seems these may largely be absent, I have just changed a few of these: Abalone Pohutukawa Cabbage tree (Cordyline australis) Onco_p53 12:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Showing the Maori word in italics with macrons near the top is a good idea, and is similar to how we often treat words derived from other languages, e.g. philosophy, latte, Kamikaze, etc.

When an article is specifically about a Maori topic or group, I think we should not follow typical English usage as closely, but should defer more to the Maori spelling. For instance, we currently use macrons in articles such as Māori language and Ngāi Tahu, and I feel that is appropriate. Similarly, we prefer American spelling for American topics, and NZ English for NZ topics. -- Avenue 14:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does Avenue's idea offer a good compromise? Clearly there are contemporary authoritative publications that are in the English language and use macrons, and there are those that don't. We could think of them as representing two kinds of New Zealand English: en-NZ-macron and en-NZ-nomacron. This is along the lines of British English which has an OED variety (-ize endings) and a standard variety (-ise endings).

So terms that refer to Māori topics (e.g. Māori, kōhanga reo, Ngāi Tahu) would have macrons, but terms that are about general topics (like flora, fauna and place names) would not have macrons. I'd still prefer to have macrons on all words from Māori, but I think this would be an okay compromise, and it seems to roughly reflect the status quo.

How do other people feel about this?

Ben Arnold 23:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I’d still like to see macrons in all articles, so it would be a compromise ;-)

The disadvantage of this plan is this will become an ongoing debate: there’s potential for this argument every time there’s a new Māori word in an article, or a new article with a Māori word in the title is created; *plus* when macronised spellings for various words become more common (‘Māori’ wasn’t a few years ago). Which is one of the reasons the Māori Language Commission recommends using macrons all the time. Barefootguru 04:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My idea was not quite what Ben indicates above. He proposes that terms referring to Māori topics should use macrons, while I suggested that entire articles referring to Māori topics should use macrons (i.e. these articles should be written in en-NZ-macron, to use Ben's notation). My thinking was that people reading and editing these articles would be more likely to care about macrons than someone reading an article about Whangamatā or the Tūī, say.

One disadvantage of my idea is that the spelling of Māori loanwords would not be consistent across articles. But one advantage is that any debate would be about particular articles, and this could be handled through discussions on their talk pages.

I agree with Barefootguru that Ben's plan could potentially lead to fresh debate when new words get used, and I suspect this could be much harder to manage than my suggestion.

I concur with Nurg's argument at the end of the previous debate against following the Māori Language Commission recommendation in the English Wikipedia:

"... the English WP follows and reflects current common English usage. It does not lead cultural or political change as the MLC does."

The rest of Nurg's comments are also well worth reading, by the way. -- Avenue 14:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Auckland now called Waitemata?

I saw a new New Zealand Atlas today in a Whitcoulls that had Auckland marked in large bold text near the Auckland urban sprawl. But then it had the cities marked in smaller type. North Shore, Waitakere, Manukau.... and Waitemata. Waitemata was marked, clear as day, and as bold as the other cities, straight across the isthmus.

Have they recently renamed our most populous territorial authority, or has some map-maker gone mad?

I admit to not paying too much attention to the goings-on north of the Bombay Hills, but I'd have thought a name change this big would have caught my ear.

Anyone know anything?

(P.S. I have more to say on the macron issue, I wrote quite a bit and then forgot to click Save!)

Ben Arnold 11:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably just a mapping error. If any region was called Waitemata, it would be to the north and west of the Waitemata Harbour, not to the south. For example, the Waitemata District Health Board covers North Shore City, Rodney District, and Waitakere City (map). I think the old Waitemata Electric Power Board covered much the same area. -- Avenue 12:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, Waitemata City used to be part of what is now Waitakere City as described in Waitakere so it seems like a mapping error. Perhaps the person involved wasn't a New Zealand who had outdated information of the existance of a Waitemata from pre-Waitakere City days and wasn't sure what to do with it so they just added it randomly :-P Nil Einne 17:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oceania

The Australasia article seems to suggest most New Zealanders wouldn't consider Australia a part of Oceania. As a kiwi myself this seems rather odd to me, I would say most New Zealanders would consider both terms to refer to the same thing with the former a word used by Aussies and other 'idiots' who don't know better... Maybe the article is supposed to say most Australians don't consider themselves part of Oceania which I personally also find unlikely but can't really speak with much authority own. Nil Einne 17:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team cooperation

Hello. I'm a member of the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing articles using these criteria, and we are are asking for your help. As you are most aware of the issues surrounding your focus area, we are wondering if you could provide us with a list of the articles that fall within the scope of your WikiProject, and that are either featured, A-class, B-class, or Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Do you have any recommendations? If you do, please post your suggestions at the listing of all active Places WikiProjects, and if you have any questions, ask me in the Work Via WikiProjects talk page or directly in my talk page. Thanks a lot! Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 18:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied at Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/WPPlaces#Wikipedia:WikiProject_New_Zealand with the three Giano architect featured articles, and mention of the New Zealand portal selected articles. If anyone knows of any other featured articles relating to New Zealand, or articles which meet the Wikipedia:Good articles criteria or better, please add them there.-gadfium 04:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any articles that meet the Good article criteria, be sure to list them at WP:GAN too. Thanks! Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Catlins

As a slight follow-up to the 1.0 item, I'm trying to get The Catlins up slowly towards FA status (at least as regards the NZ portal, if not WP as a whole). I think I've got it to A-standard now, but if anyone can either add to the article or suggest improvements (either on the article's talk page or on my user talk page) it would be welcomed! Grutness...wha? 23:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gay rights in New Zealand

I noticed this in the gay rights in NZ article "The following year, the Relationships (Statutory References) Act, was passed to remove discriminatory provisions from most, but not all, legislation." Does anyone know what legislation did not have discriminatory provisions removed? I'm guessing that this article is referring to civil unions/same sex unions vs marriages/opposite sex unions. If it's referring to general discriminations against homosexuals vs heterosexuals in NZ legislation this needs to be clarified. I don't personally know of any, e.g. I don't think we have arguably discrimitory age of consent laws ala Australia. But I don't know much about gay rights... The only thing I can think of is perhaps the author was referring to the fact that marriages between same sex couples is still not allowed. Whatever the case, it needs to be clarified or removed. Nil Einne 19:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote that, but I don't recall exactly what I was thinking of at the time I wrote it. My references were inadequate for this sentence. I have found the following document: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON CIVIL UNION AND RELATIONSHIPS (STATUTORY REFERENCES) BILLS which covers the legislation which is not affected under the subheading "What legislation does the Bill not amend?". This is sufficiently minor that I will remove the "most, but not all" from the Gay rights in New Zealand article unless someone wants to argue to the contrary.-gadfium 01:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Age of consent

Does anyone with more time want to start a vote (or just move along with links if you're brave) to change the name of the Age of consent in Australia article? This currently covers New Zealand as well and is supposed to cover other Pacific countries but is named Age of consent in Australia. Nil Einne 19:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done (been bold, that is :). It's now at Age of consent in Australia and Oceania. Grutness...wha? 23:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just, so as you know.......

I intend to move First Maori War back to Flagstaff War. (done)

Wikipedia has no article headed Second Maori War so the word first is redundant. (done)
"Maori war" is a misnomer, Heke and co attacked the authority of the crown, not Maori who happened to support the Brits.
Conflicts are referred to in Wikipedia as the New Zealand land wars, not Maori wars.
Our New Zealand land wars article states that 'The first New Zealand War, the Flagstaff War, took place in.......". Click on that link and you are redirected to First Maori War. (no longer)
The text of First Maori War has no mention that the Royal Navy was involved. (now fixed)
Our Military history of New Zealand has no mention of this Flagstaff War! It has this section dealing with land wars between 1861 and 1864, so I will rectify that too. Comments anyone? Moriori 02:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NZ FAC - The Catlins

Apologies for the cross-posting, but I thought you'd like to know that Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Catlins is now up and running! Grutness...wha? 02:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborations

Does New Zealand wiki articles need a Wikipedia:Collaborations? It would be a good way of improving articles one at a time, as happens in many other parts of Wikipedia. Would people be interested? --Midnight tonight 00:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have set up: Wikipedia:New Zealand Collaboration of the Fortnight

Holidays and commercial free TV

Is the reason TV is commercial free on Christmas, Easter Sunday and Good Friday (and ANZAZ morning I guess although I wasn't even aware TV was commercial free then :-P ) due to the same trading restrictions that prevent stores opening on these days? If so, someone should add it to the Holidays in New Zealand article. I could add it but given that I don't know (although it seems very likely) someone needs to confirm it first and I might not check back here for a while so it'll be easier if someone who knows can add it if it's true Nil Einne 14:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently enjoying the (Its currently Good Friday) ad free TV/Radio, and shops been closed, & its nice to see a nice day for a change. Brian | (Talk) 02:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Years in New Zealand

Hi - I have been working on years in Australia and came across the Tasman for 1913 in New Zealand and the world's first automatic totalisator. Just a suggestion that the months sub-headings under events are probably over the top making the table of contents too long and hard to navigate. I am commenting here as several editors are involved and there doesn't seem to be a project page associated with the effort. Apologies if it is the wrong place. Two pages I have set up to help with the years in Australia are: Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/19xx in Australia - missing years and a template at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/19xx in Australia. There are probably some categories that need to be commented out, eg "Radio and Television" and some of the links are probably not appropriate, eg "ARIA Music Awards of 1913".--A Y Arktos\^talk 21:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The pages were created from a template (somewhat precipitously and coinciding with the one millionth article rush...) and need considerable cleanup to be in a presentable state (i.e. to not have blatant untruths in them). The years 1980 - 1989 are the current New Zealand Collaboration of the Fortnight, but there's no real centralised discussion yet. Thanks for the heads-up, I certainly expect that the month subheadings will be removed from earlier articles in the course of the general cleaning. :) Ziggurat 22:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]