Talk:New Zealand

Sport section outdated.

Article reads:

"The All Blacks, the national rugby union team, are the most successful in the history of international rugby and have won the World Cup three times."

This has changed at the end of 2023 with the Springbok team from South Africa winning the 2023 Rugby World Cup giving them a total of 4 titles vs New Zealand's 3. Waffensohn (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

No. The 1st part refers to their test match record (i.e. international match record). Only the last part refers to their World Cup record, which, as you indicate, has not changed from 3 wins. Nurg (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

To make this clearer, I have now split these into two separate sentences. PatricKiwi (talk) 08:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

New Zealand Sign language video request

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Deaf#Video_request_(NZSL_and_SASL) for more info on request. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 15:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Not a video, but I've added a graphic to the infobox demonstrating how to sign the name. --Hazhk (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The picture is great, but I've had to remove it because the uploaded image on commons violates the copyright policy there. See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aotearoa New Zealand.png and c:Commons:WKL. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 21:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Just FYI for anyone looking to recreate it, that sign is for ‘Aotearoa’, not ‘New Zealand’, although it does appear to be quite popular, in the same way that “Aotearoa” is in English. There are two signs for New Zealand, as linked by Howard on the project page: [1] and [2]

Also, just for completeness, there appear to be are two signs for ‘Aotearoa’ ([3] and [4]) — HTGS (talk) 06:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

A reality check might be useful here. The purpose of the infobox is "...to summarize—and not supplant—key facts that appear in the article." It is not the place to promote an issue of minor notability. It is debatable whether that detail is justified even in the 'Languages' subsection where it should be placed. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to add: As far as I was able to tell with a little bit of googling, New Zealand has no official name in NZSL (as always, correct me if I missed something). If it had an official name, I would be much more ardent in pushing to include it in the infobox (somehow; ideally as a link or tooltip). As is, I think it’s better something to think about with a mind towards the future, but better not included there at this point. Whether to include it lower in the body is a different question though. — HTGS (talk) 05:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

IBX re National anthem

I removed the words but and only because they are apologetic unnecessarily. The anthem has equal status with God defend NZ. There is no need to use the word official - they are both national anthems. By default a national anthem is official. We would only need to call it official if comparing it with an unofficial national anthem. The govt source simply explains the usual way the govt chooses to use it. As far as I know there is nothing in legislation that separates the two anthems - the way they are used is at best by protocol. The way the ibx note was written, it gave a clear implication that GSTK was second best and an accidental anthem that was tolerated but that was all. The source does not imply that at all, so IMO between the source and the IBX some personal opinion has been added! Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@user:Mir Novov I think the problem with the added note in the ibx is twofold. First, the ibx isn't the place for that level of detail - it is a very basic summary of the article that shouldn't even need sources, and certainly not two sources and a note. Second, the way it is phrased clearly implies that GSTK is secondary in importance to GDNZ. See MOS:EDITORIAL for detail of why words such as ...but... can be used to steer the reader in one direction. The IBX should be impeccably neutral in every sense. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

If it’s in a note, I’d say it’s fine. There’s plenty of articles that do that, hell this one does it for English under the official languages section. If you disagree with that, then it should be brought up at WT:MOSIBX.

Secondly, although they are officially equal in status I think it’s fair to say one is used in certain circumstances and the other in other contexts, and that is backed up by the new source I added. It would be misleading to merely include them without any additional context as that would imply that they are both interchangeably used in any situation when they are not. The famous playing of GDNZ before it became co-official would not be remembered if what you were saying was strictly correct. ― novov (t c) 23:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the full explanation. In reply, what other wiki articles do isn't relevant. I agree, many do use sources and notes, but that doesn't make it correct. The place to look is WP:IBX, not other articles. I think the place to raise this is here, not MOS:IBX, because it is specific to this article. Yes, one is used more often but that has nothing to do with their level of official-ness. That detail should be added to the article below where it belongs. Omitting the note in the IBX isn't in the least bit misleading. What's misleading about omitting the note? That both are national anthems of equal official status? Well, they are. Saying when and where either one is usually used immediately opens the door to ambiguity which undermines the equality of their official status. That famous playing of GDNZ before GSTK is so famous I can't remember it, and any connection with the current issue is your opinion. I'm not saying mention of their usage should not be added, just not in the ibx. The problem of the official languages is different and has been disgusted at length, but even an ibx note isn't ideal either. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I already checked MOS:IBX - it says References are acceptable in some cases and mentions nothing about footnotes AFAIK. Also to me it makes little sense to say one should refer to the MOS that isn't here but discuss the issue here. Whether footnotes should be used in infoboxes is clearly not an issue specific to this article and trying to decide it here is WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, as it has already been discussed on the MOS:IBX talk page multiple times.

It's not our job as Wikipedia article writers to maintain the equality of their official status, but reflect the information on the ground as summed up by reliable sources. The infobox is a place for all information about a country, not an official government fact sheet; this is New Zealand, not New Zealand Government. The fact is that one anthem is played at sporting events, sung in school assembly, and the other is usually played at royal events. This is reflected in the preponderance of RSes:

• The CIA World Factbook: "God Save the King" normally played only when a member of the royal family or the governor-general is present; in all other cases, "God Defend New Zealand" is played
• RNZ: doesn't list GSTK at all
• NZHistory: our best known official national anthem, ‘God defend New Zealand’... ‘God save the Queen’ is usually reserved for formal ceremonies involving the Queen, the Governor-General or the royal family.
• Britannica: mentions GDNZ as the anthem on its main page, only GSTK in the individual article.
• Many sources refer to GDNZ as merely the "national anthem" [5][6][7][8], the same is never done for GSTK.

Similarly, Sweden has its anthem listed (with infobox note) even though it is not officially legislated, and Switzerland has Bern as its capital (with an infobox note) even though it is officially merely a "federal city" to maintain the equal standing of the cantons. ― novov (t c) 02:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point. To me this boils down to the level of summary/shortness someone wants in an ibx. I think the official languages section does warrant a brief note because the way English and Maori are official is quite different, but I don't think the distinction between the two national anthems is big enough to warrant a note. But you clearly think otherwise and that's fine - its not a big deal. Thinking about it more, if anything is to be removed it should be the references, put into the article below, with the ibx being a very brief summary of what is below, with references not needed. Now, seeing as I have your attention, please see the section below. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Bad source

There is an unsafe source in the system from 1966, the Encyclopedia of NZ. It has a warning on it to that effect so I am not sure why it is still available. I removed it from this article a couple of days ago and ― novov (t c) put it back. I also removed what it supported, that Maori came from East Asia because it was then unsupported. I think that comment is pointless and lacks any relevance. Maori came from the Rift Valley too if you want to go back that far. My changes were reverted. I think the source should be removed, as has happened at other articles. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with An Encyclopaedia of New Zealand. What you describe as "a warning on it" is a caveat on the on-line version that the original text has not been updated. I suggest you read the linked Wikipedia article and revise your opinion. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I see. My apologies, I was confusing this page about music with another page, also from 1966, that has the warning and does contain some obvious inaccuracies. I can't remember where that one was. I didn't mean the Encyclopedia of New Zealand is a bad source, it was just the one specific page (which I think may have been about Maori history). Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The fact that Polynesian people (including Māori) originally came from East Asia is supported in the cited article in An Encyclopaedia of New Zealand: from a far-distant past when the Polynesian people lived somewhere on the mainland of South-East Asia. I agree that it's not terribly relevant though, hence why I removed it in my following edits. Also, the EoNZ is used multiple times elsewhere in the article.

The main reason why I reverted your edit is because Māori developed traditional chants and songs from their ancient Southeast Asian origins, and after centuries of isolation created a unique sound. Flutes and trumpets were used as musical instruments or as signalling devices during war or special occasions. doesn't make much sense if you remove the first sentence - what flutes and trumpets are being referred to here? This is a moot point though since I have rewritten that passage using new sources. ― novov (t c) 08:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Improvement article for the month

Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand (WANZ) has selected this page as our improvement article for the month in our September newsletter. CopperAlchemy (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2024

Hi, I would like to change this sentence to sound appropriate.

Original sentence: "A developed country, it was the first to introduce a minimum wage, and the first to give women the right to vote."

Edited sentence: "Being a developed country, it was the first to introduce a minimum wage, and the first to give women the right to vote." Xzsh0 (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

What's the difference? Your new version makes it sound as though a country has to be developed before it can give women the vote. The first version does that too, but less strongly. Why not just remove the developed country part? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)