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Sport section outdated.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 Discoverment

New Zealand was discovered by spanish people during the 16th century. Needs to be changed. 93.156.202.253 (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Have you got reliable sources to back this claim up? Turnagra (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Ross Dependency

The dependency is not part of New Zealand or the Realm of New Zealand so the infobox self-made map should be removed. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

What has changed since you raised this matter in 2020? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_Zealand/Archive_7#Infobox_map Daveosaurus (talk) 11:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I have raised the issue here. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

That feels a lot like WP:FORUMSHOPPING. From what I can see, every country with an Antarctic claim has it on at least one of their infobox maps and I don't know why we should be different from that. I'd be happy for it to be a lighter green (as other claims are) but it shouldn't be removed altogether by any stretch. Turnagra (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Not forum shopping. The issue relates to the time when NZ was a dominion before full independence of government, meaning the issue is just as much British empire related. I have commented on the BE article. We should not group all seven claims together as if they are all the same, they are not at all. And using other WP articles as a guide of what is factually correct is of course wrong. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

No, the issue relates to this page. It doesn't matter when it happened, because it's talking about which map to use here, and so this page is the right place to discuss it. Turnagra (talk) 05:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the first step is to get it clear what the constitutional connection is between New Zealand and the dependency. The various sources and wiki articles be used do not make that clear. Even the NZ govt page that is used as a RSS only says, in total isolation 'The Ross Dependency is constitutionally part of New Zealand'. The Ross Dependency article isn't clear either in its reference to the 1923 Order. As I give this more thought, the answer to the question 'Is the Ross Dependency part of New Zealand' begins to get longer and longer. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:02, 30 April 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)