Talk:Waitangi Day Acts

Template?

The template is screwed up - it lists the article itself as a template, and the article is full of "noincludes" Ingolfson (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge of New Zealand Day Act 1973 into Waitangi Day Acts

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The New Zealand Day Act is best discussed within the context of the other two Waitangi Day acts, and the alternative, a one-article-per-act attitude, would be totally unnecessary, splitting up intrinsically related content and requiring each article to summarise all the same points from the others. One article discussing the three acts (as well as the Waitangi Day Amendment Act) would allow for a straightforward chronological structure, and attract aggregate attention from interested editors (and readers). An all-encompassing name would be nice, but the “Waitangi Day Acts” can easily refer to “acts about Waitangi Day”, rather than solely “acts named Waitangi Day”. — HTGS (talk) 09:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Not sure the merge is necessary. The article Waitangi Day, in particular the History section, already gives a chronological discussion of the development of legislation surrounding the day as proposed above, with links to the individual articles devoted to each of the pieces of legislation. Paora (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in, Paora. I had also considered that merging all three acts into the Waitangi Day article might be the simplest and clearest for readers, but expected that this particular merge would get less opposition. Thoughts on this bigger merge?

As is, it’s not clear what separate articles for the legislation add, as these aren’t legally important or legally complicated acts, so much as they are politically important. And of course, as you are aware, all of the political history, which is covered here already, can be better covered together over at Waitangi Day. This is almost the case at the moment, as that article has only a small amount of the detail missing, and that should properly be expanded there, rather than sending readers to these two articles.

For comparison, we don’t have a separate article on the Matariki Public Holiday Act and that info is just as easily covered under Matariki. — HTGS (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Suppport the proposal to merge the NZ dat act 1973 article into Waitangi Day Acts; the 3 days are closely related and represent a set of closely associated acts. Presenting them on one page in chronological order would give a present a page with a clear narrative and a better experience for readers. I also think the name Waitangi Day Acts as the (much) more current term. Klbrain (talk) 09:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The Act of 1973 satisfies GNG. No verifiable evidence has been presented that the Act of 1973 is considered a "Waitangi Day Act" by reliable sources. There are sources describing the Act of 1973 as having replaced Waitangi Day with something that was not Waitangi Day: [1]. James500 (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@James500: I've checked the source you link to, and can see nothing that supports your claim there. Could you be more specific, as I might have missed it. I therefore reaffirm the idea that all 3 acts are closely related and readers are best served by having them discussed in one place; formal reasons are short text and context. Klbrain (talk) 09:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment (maybe weak support) I've gone back and forth on this whenever I check in over the past months and haven't been able to reach a solid position so have held off commenting. I think where I'm leaning at the moment is that a merge is a good idea, but maybe start with merging into Waitangi Day Acts rather than the Waitangi Day article proper at this stage. I'm not opposed to a further merge down the line, but I think this would be a good way to talk more about the legal origins of it and the acts themselves rather than placing extra focus on that side of things in the main article. It would be good to see the articles expanded with more of the back-and-forth origins of the Day, which I think is better suited to having them all in the one place. Turnagra (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@HTGS, Paora, Klbrain, James500, and Turnagra: Any editor can propose a similar or the same change. If there is no opposition to an editor's proposal, it can be implemented without closing discussion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)