Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board

New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board
This page is a notice board for things that are particularly relevant to New Zealand Wikipedians.

You are encouraged to add your name to the list of New Zealand Wikipedians.

Click here to start a new discussion
New Zealand time and date: 19:20 8 July 2020 NZST (refresh)
Universal time and date: 07:20 8 July 2020 UTC (refresh)
Did you knowArticles for deletionProposed deletions
  • 07 Jul 2020 – Simon Cooke (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by (t · c): Not notable. WP:SUSTAINED
  • 05 Jul 2020 – Armin Pasagic (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by BlameRuiner (t · c): Subject fails GNG and NFOOTY. Appearances in Bosnian league were in 15/16 season, before its fully-pro status. Page moved from draftspace to article space despite two rejected AFCs.
  • 02 Jul 2020 – Secondary Futures (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by Boleyn (t · c): Doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG, hence it sitting in CAT:NN for 11 years.
Categories for discussionFeatured article candidatesGood article nomineesGood article reassessmentsRequested movesArticles to be mergedArticles to be splitArticles for creation
Notice: Since November 2014 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand has redirected to this page. Archives for the page can be found below.
Wikimania 2021
Bangkok, Thailand – 05-08-2021
393 days to go
Local Time


Second-biggest cityEdit

Spotted this being discussed on Twitter by User:Comingupcharlienz (lovely user name, mate!), so went to see what had been changed. Here's the edit summary for Christchurch having a higher population than Wellington:

Corrected the claim that Wellington was larger than Christchurch, which was based on the outdated NZSAC92 standard, which was replaced in 2018. Under the modern standard, used by government agency Statistics NZ, Christchurch is significantly larger than Wellington by population. See this page:

Now I haven't got to the bottom of where it subsequently states metro population data. But if the standard for how this is measured has changed, and Christchurch is now "bigger" than Wellington, surely we must reflect that here? Gadfium, I'm not sure that it needs a big discussion around that. You said in your revert:

The figures we're using here show Wellington to have a larger urban population. To change the claim, we would need to use the 2018 figures in all articles on NZ urban centres. Please propose that change at WP:NZWNB)

I would have thought that we don't immediately have to update all of Template:NZ population data to 2018 data, but if there are key aspects wrong, and there's a reliable source for it being wrong, we could instead ditch the template in that case, provide a source manually, and show what the true story is. How does that sound?

That said, I see that there is also Template:NZ population data 2018. So are the data already available? Lcmortensen, I see that you maintain the underlying data, and that (as per "Table 3A = Main urban areas") Wellington (418,500) appears to have a larger population than Christchurch (404,500). Could you shed some light on that, please? Schwede66 03:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:NZ population data continues to use the older NZSAC92 standard, while Template:NZ population data 2018 uses the newer SSGA18 standard. A new template was required for SSGA18, at least in the interim, since many of the urban area names and boundaries are not backwards-compatible with NZSAC92. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 03:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
If we update Christchurch to use {{NZ population data 2018}}, but don't update Wellington, then we are comparing unlike figures, so at the very least, we need to update both, and it would seem sensible to go through the links to the old template and replace any use which doesn't appear historical. We also need to eyeball each article for comparisons which might no longer be accurate. List of cities in New Zealand should also be updated. Urban areas of New Zealand already has both 2018 and the older standard, but perhaps we should put the 2018 standard first. List of New Zealand urban areas by population has both figures side by side. I'm happy to go through and do these changes, if I get feedback that my plan is sane.-gadfium 04:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Urban areas can't cross territorial authority boundaries in SSGA18, whereas they can in NZSAC92. The "Wellington" in 2018 refers to only the Wellington City Council part of the metro area, whereas the "Wellington" in 1992 includes Porirua, Lower Hutt and Upper Hutt.
For comparison, you can see the maps of the boundaries here: 1992 2018
Also, I've moved {{NZ population data}} to {{NZ population data 1992}} with a redirect, so we know which version is which. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 06:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Gadfium, what you say makes sense. I never thought of updating just the Christchurch article and not the Wellington one. But we might as well do the whole lot and it's good to see that both template sets are up to date. Good work all round! Schwede66 09:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I've amended the Christchurch article to say it can be regarded as the second- or third-largest, linking to List of New Zealand urban areas by population because that shows both figures, and including an explanation in a footnote. Later today, I'll start changing most uses of {{NZ population data 1992}} to {{NZ population data 2018}} unless I hear an objection.-gadfium 17:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Glad to see this is in capable hands; thank you, folks, for speedily sorting this out as soon as a journalist mentioned on Twitter it was an issue. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I start going through the links to {{NZ population data}}, and in the first dozen entries, all seemed to be reasonable uses of the template, either because the boundaries hadn't changed (e.g. for Districts and Regions - and I checked that Auckland and Marlborough, which have changed boundaries since 1992, were correct) or because using urban areas rather than the territorial areas seemed appropriate. I also spot-checked several other links. It seems other editor have already done the work required. I'll go back to the Christchurch and Wellington articles and try to get a better wording about their rankings.-gadfium 03:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by the current wording - "The urban area is home to 404,500 residents,[2] making it New Zealand's third-most populous urban area behind Auckland and Wellington, and the territorial authority has 377,200 people[3] which makes it the second most populous city, as Wellington city is less populous despite having a larger urban population". Under SSGA18, the former Wellington urban area was split into two major urban areas (called Wellington and Lower Hutt) and two large urban areas (called Porirua and Upper Hutt). The new Christchurch urban area is now much more populated than the new Wellington urban area. Their respective populations are correctly listed on this page The wording above seems to arbitrarily merge the four Wellington urban areas together, incorrectly claiming them as one. I would suggest it be changed back to what it was earlier, clarifying that Christchurch is larger under the modern Stats NZ standard, but Wellington was once deemed larger. (Apologies if I'm doing this incorrectly, I'm new to this). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comingupcharlienz (talkcontribs) 07:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the wording you quoted is confusing. Perhaps the way to make it less confusing is to distinguish between greater Wellington (which includes the Hutt Valley, and Porirua), and Wellington city proper. E.g.
"The urban area is home to 404,500 residents,[2] making it New Zealand's third-most populous urban area behind Auckland and greater Wellington. The territorial authority has 377,200 people[3] which makes it the second most populous city, as Wellington city is less populous than Christchurch city, despite Wellington having a larger urban population in its greater metropolitan area". Ross Finlayson (talk) 07:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
There is a major urban area around Wellington, which includes Hutt Valley and Porirua, which the 1992 standard recognises (with boundaries updated to 2017), but the 2018 standard doesn't extend beyond territory limits. There is also an urban area extending beyond Christchurch City's territorial limits, including Rolleston and Lincoln, but that urban area has less populaton than Wellington's, even though Christchurch city has more people than Wellington city. The articles do not perhaps do a very good job of distinguishing between city limits and urban limits, but the Wellington article is dealing with the urban area, with a separate article on Wellington City Council for the territorial body, while Christchurch deals with both the territorial body and the urban area. I would be happy with Ross Finlayson's wording, except that the term "greater Wellington" (against my expectations) usually refers to the Wellington District rather than the Wellington urban area. Metropolitan area might be an appropriate synonym for urban area.-gadfium 08:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree it would be more accurate to say "greater Wellington" is more populated than "greater Christchurch", but as far as I'm aware, neither term is formally used by Stats NZ - they're social constructs. And I don't quite understand why the 1992 standard has any relevance, considering it was explicitly replaced by the 2018 standard, which has specifically defined "urban areas" that are unrelated to political boundaries, which are what territories are.If you're going to cite a standard as authoritative, it should surely be the current one, not the one it replaced. The simplest solution to me is to simply note that Christchurch is the second-largest urban area, and Wellington is the third-largest urban area, as that is what is recognised by the government authority. If a caveat is required, you could say Wellington is larger if you include Lower Hutt, Upper Hutt, and Porirua, though I don't know why that would be necessary, given they are cities in their own right. I don't see why it needs to be more complicated than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comingupcharlienz (talkcontribs) 22:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that some 'caveat' is needed, because most New Zealanders would consider 'Wellington' to be the country's second-largest 'city' - thinking of 'Wellington' as meaning 'greater Wellington' (or 'the Wellington metropolitan area'; choose your favourite wording), and 'city' as meaning 'urban area'. Yes, "greater Wellington" and "greater Christchurch" are 'social constructs'; that's precisely the point here. Simply stating that "Christchurch is the second-largest urban area" - without some caveat - would be a mistake, because this would (at first glance) appear, to most NZers, to be an error. Ross Finlayson (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Whether people would think it was an error or not seems both speculative and not particularly relevant - it is objectively true that Christchurch is a more populated urban area than the Wellington urban area. I have still not seen any justification for why the population of 'Wellington City' should also include the populations of three other cities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comingupcharlienz (talkcontribs) 23:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I too would like to see a definition of "Wellington" the city that includes the Hutt and Porirua, and a definition of "greater Wellington", both with references please. And especially one for "greater Christchurch", whatever that supposedly includes: Rangiora? Kaiapoi? Rolleston? Lincoln? Appealing to what "most New Zealanders" think is not enough, since "most New Zealanders" may not think of Dunedin as smaller than Lower Hutt (or even Tauranga). An opinion poll where people rank the size of NZ cities would be interesting, but it shouldn't determine the content of Wikipedia. --Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
In case it's not already obvious (to people who took the time to carefully read what I wrote), my comment about taking into account what "most New Zealanders would consider" was merely in reference to whether or not it's a good idea to add a 'caveat' to the fact ('objective truth') that Christchurch City is more populous than Wellington City. If you choose not to add such a caveat, then I don't really care. It won't be me who'll be frequently reverting edits by people who mistakenly think that it's wrong. Ross Finlayson (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Map of the Wellington Urban Area

I think the article Wellington, which currently covers four cities (the 1992 standard), probably needs to be rewritten to the 2018 standard, which is mostly the same as the 1992 standard called the Wellington Zone. It includes a little less than half of the Wellington City area, excluding its rural areas. A new article on the Wellington Urban Area can deal with the urban part of the four cities, and might be quite short, similar to Hamilton Urban Area. Alternatively, rename the current article to Wellington Urban Area, removing material which is really about the capital city, and create a new article for the 2018 standard. The article on Christchurch similarly is dealing with the area in the 1992 standard, but this differs less from the 2018 standard. It currently covers areas to the north and south of the 2018-defined urban area. In the 2018 standard, those areas to the north and south are combined with Banks Peninsula as "Other rural Christchurch City", so perhaps they are not really urban. I don't think the article on Christchurch needs a major rewrite as much as the Wellington one does. Articles on other urban areas will probably also need work, but this is much more extensive than I was envisaging when I said I would update articles to use the 2018 standard. In the meantime, I suggest the rewriting of the lead at Christchurch to use only the 2018 template, as follows:

"The urban area is home to 377,200 residents,[1] and the territorial authority has 385,500 people[1] which makes it the second-most populous city after Auckland"

and the infobox figures including the area should be adjusted to match. This is a change in my position. I welcome alternatives.-gadfium 03:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to get up to speed with these two standards. There's a couple of related comments made above that I don't yet follow. Lcmortensen said, "Urban areas can't cross territorial authority boundaries in SSGA18", and gadfium said, "the 2018 standard doesn't extend beyond territory limits". What are these statements based on? I am having trouble reconciling them with "Urban boundaries are independent of local government and other administrative boundaries, that is, an urban area may be contained within one or more local government region or administrative areas." (Statistical standard for geographic areas 2018, p. 15.) Nurg (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I have got a couple of things wrong above. The 2018 standard seems much more reluctant to extend urban areas across territorial limits, but there seem to be some examples where it does. I have trouble finding out what the boundaries are for each area. The maps linked to by Lcmortenen are very useful, but while for example I can see the Hamilton area, I can't see the Hamilton City area, which has slightly less population. What's the difference between them? Secondly, I mentioned the Christchurch urban area as including Rolleston and Lincoln, but even the 1992 standard does not include those towns. The comparison of urban population between Christchurch and Wellington may well be different if we include such satellite towns. I've come to the conclusion that giving the 2018 figure for urban area and not making comparisons with other urban areas is the safest way to proceed.-gadfium 17:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
gadfium, go to Stats NZ geographic boundary viewer. Toggle the 'Urban Rural' layer to see the urban areas. Expand with the right-arrow head to get earlier years. Nurg (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Oops. I forgot to mention that the region and TA data is the 2019 update on the 2018 data, which uses a new method for calculating migration. The urban area data still uses the original 2018 data with old-method migration, since the update is not yet available. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 08:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ a b "Subnational Population Estimates: At 30 June 2019". Statistics New Zealand. 22 October 2019. Retrieved 11 January 2020.

According to the methodology for the 2018 standard, the only urban area that crosses territorial boundaries is Richmond near Nelson. Stats NZ has a digital map showing the boundaries for each urban rural area under the 2018 standard It does not include the population for each, unfortunately, but that can be obtained elsewhere using the respective urban area codes. As an aside, a journalist colleague of mine has been corresponding with Stats NZ on this issue, which has provided 2019 population estimates for both 'greater Wellington'and 'greater Christchurch', which shows the latter to have a larger population. This means regardless of which metric you use - the legal city boundaries, the statistical urban area boundaries, or the social 'greater' city boundaries - Christchurch is the more populated city. But it is perhaps safer to stick with the urban rural boundaries, as a consistent standard across the country. Comingupcharlienz (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

That's interesting to see; thanks for doing this work. Based on the (to me) surprising result that the population of 'greater Christchurch' is also higher than that of 'greater Wellington' (assuming that it's generally understood that the latter doesn't include the Kapiti Coast), I withdraw my earlier comment that there should be some 'caveat' added when stating this result. Thanks again for helping make Wikipedia correspond to on-the-ground reality! Ross Finlayson (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Right then, we have a further reliable source in this article. Or do we not? Is does the author of those lines possibly have a conflict of interest? Just kidding; it's a great write-up of this situation.

Anyway, on a more serious note. The demographics section of the Christchurch article needs updating and it should also give more context, e.g. the change in standard used by StatsNZ. I'm working on a bio at the moment but when I'm done and this hasn't been fixed yet, I shall give it a go myself. Once that's done, we can possibly more concisely summarise the population situation than what's currently there. And once Christchurch is 'fixed', the content can be copied to the Wellington article and adjusted accordingly. Schwede66 06:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

For background, here is a 2012 article from Stats NZ busting the myth that Before the 2011/12 earthquakes, Christchurch had overtaken Wellington to become New Zealand’s second largest city. Nurg (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
In the first instance, I have edited List of cities in New Zealand. I thought it wise to include the population data for both standards, hence there are now two tables, with text explaining where the difference comes from. See whether that works for you. The 2018 population data table contains an additional five "large urban areas" and my choice of photos could possibly be improved upon. Schwede66 20:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

When I went through the uses of the 1992 template ({{NZ population data 1992}}) on 11/12 January, I concluded that there was no need for widespread replacement, because in most cases the boundaries hadn't changed and the two templates gave exactly the same result, or using the urban areas rather than the territorial areas seemed appropriate. However, my report back above was out of date at about the time I made it, as the 2018 template ({{NZ population data 2018}}) received its annual update, and the 1992 template kept the earlier data. It then became appropriate to give higher priority to moving to the 2018 template.

I have now changed to use the 2018 template wherever it seems reasonable to do so. There are some remaining uses of the old template:

  1. Articles which compare the old NZSAC92 and new SSGA18 standards
  2. Articles on former territorial authorities, such as North Shore City
  3. Articles on urban areas which are not covered by the new template, and which do not seem like a good fit for using arithmetic to add together smaller centres within the urban area. For example, Hamilton Urban Area includes a number of small towns which are not covered by the new template as well as larger settlement which are covered, and Taipa-Mangonui is not covered by the new template at all, presumably because none of the four individual settlements making up the area has a large enough population to qualify.
  4. Articles dealing with a specific time in the past. 2010 Wellington local elections is the only example of this. The article should have populations at the time of the elections, not current populations. The old template does not achieve this very well, having 2018 figures, but the new template would be even less appropriate with future updates and possibly different boundaries.

I will now turn my attention to incorporating 2018 census data into geographical articles per the #2018 demographics section below this, which might allow me to tidy up some of the above issues.-gadfium 05:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Links to DAB pagesEdit

I have collected two articles with New Zealand- or Polynesia-related links to DAB pages where expert help would be welcome. Search for "disam" in read mode and for"{d" in edit mode; and if you solve either of these puzzles, remove the {{dn}} tag and post {{done}} here.

Thanks in advance, Narky Blert (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Māori Land Court  Done. Nurg (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Tiki mugs  Done. Nurg (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

New category createdEdit

Kia ora koutou, Ipigott has created a new category, Category:New Zealand Māori women academics and populated it - please take a look over it and if you see someone missing, go ahead and add her! MurielMary (talk) 10:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Stuff article on Wikipedians in NZEdit

Kia ora koutou, Stuff is writing a story about NZers involved with Wikipedia - if you are interested in speaking to the reporter reply here and I'll send her phone number to you by email. Cheers! MurielMary (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikimedia User Group of Aotearoa New ZealandEdit

Hi all, I'd like to announce that Wikimedia User Group of Aotearoa New Zealand has been approved. I reckon that most of you noticed but I'm writing here anyway just in case some of you haven't. Feel free to put your name down if you want to support this initiative. Regards, Podzemnik (talk) 02:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC on macronsEdit

Interested editors may wish to comment.

Should the New Zealand naming conventions be amended to allow the use of macrons for articles written in New Zealand English?

Details at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand). Schwede66 23:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

WP-macrons in media: [1][2] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

New Zealand Architecture AwardsEdit

Hi, I've added New Zealand Architecture Award and New Zealand Architecture Awards as redirects to the New Zealand Institute of Architects, and added a section heading to point to. That said, I feel there could be more of a fuss made about them; could they have their own page? — Jon (talk) 07:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Jon, the way it goes is as follows: have a look around for sources. If you find enough that can demonstrate WP:GNG then write an article. If you aren't sure, write the article in draft space and ask others for their opinion. Schwede66 18:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I'd say: (a) they can have their own article (no hurry, build the section up and then the section can be moved to a new article, see NZIA Gold Medal for ideas what it might look like) (b) the winners can have their own category. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Urbanity and Rurality and Something MissingEdit

Someone has suavely set up a stack of categories for New Zealanders but only those from cities or towns. Where does someone like this fit? (rurality is a real word, they use it in America). Eddaido (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Coming from outside, it looks like he could be added to Category:Rugby union players from Masterton‎ (based on his birthplace in the infobox). It's not obvious to me why Category:Rugby union players by city or town in New Zealand does not appear to be under Category:Rugby union players in New Zealand. I don't watch sportspeople categories often enoguh to know what is "normal" anywhere else. --Scott Davis Talk 14:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
If you pick up my link to NZHistory it says he's from the Wairarapa and is Wairarapa born and bred. True Masterton is in the Wairarapa but the people from Masterton would see themselves as better than the people in the country districts and vice versa. They have different self-images. I'm sure this applies all around the country (but I'll skip trying a Dad-joke on that one).

Sorry about the delay, there's been a slip up, a copy of Lochore biography has been re-ordered. In the meantime see WP:COPDEF more particularly Categorization - the place of birth "The place of birth, although it may be significant from the perspective of local studies, is rarely defining from the perspective of an individual." Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 10:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Lochore, An Authorised Biography as told to Alex Veysey, Gary Cafell and Ron Palenski published 25 years ago sees Brian Lochore to be from the Wairarapa Not Masterton. I'm going to assume that WP editors and perhaps their readers know this is no longer true in today's minds and there I will let the matter rest. Until the next time it comes up of course. Eddaido (talk) 08:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested moveEdit

A requested move at Talk:Catherine Bott (footballer) has been reopened and relisted. Your opinion would be greatly appreciated. Please come and help! PI Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 06:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Assistance please with the article Ngāti PāoaEdit

Hi all,
Please also see this user's contributions and this WP:ANI discussion.
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Demonym in BLPsEdit

Is there a problem with denoting New Zealanders as "New Zealander" in the lede sentence of biographies? It seems the common usage is "New Zealand", which is poor grammar! And not consistent with other demonyms. Elizium23 (talk) 04:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

"New Zealander" is the correct demonym for someone from New Zealand. However, if you write "Gielen is a New Zealand bishop", then you are using the adjective form, which is "New Zealand". To say "New Zealander bishop" is bad grammar. Many demonyms are identical to their associated adjectives, which may be confusing you. This one is not. "Scot" vs "Scottish" is similar. If you want consistency, you picked the wrong language with English.-gadfium 05:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I've asked a question about this at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Demonyms ending with -er, which might come up with a definitive answer.-gadfium 03:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Added Mokoroa Falls PageEdit

I added a page for Mokoroa falls here: (Interesting009 (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC))

Added references and sources to New Zealand International Film FestivalEdit

Added references and sources to New Zealand International Film Festival: . Removed: "This article does not cite any sources..." from the top of the article. (Interesting009 (talk) 05:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC))

Water cycle and climate changeEdit

Kia ora,

Walter Jehne, an Australian climate scientist and microbiologist was recently in the country. A key message was that CO2 accounts for 4% of the heat dynamics of the planet. The water cycle accounts for 94%, so gives us a much bigger lever to work with. When I look at Wikipedia's climate page it only has a couple of paragraphs on the water cycle. I would like to write something, but I don't have the science credentials. Any suggestions?PeterBruce-Iri (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would be a good idea, especially if you're not familiar with climate science. If you're going to wade in, be prepared for disappointment, and read Skeptical Science articles on the topics first, for example the "water vapour is stronger than CO₂" claim.[1] Jehne has some interesting useful strategies that amount to pulling water vapour out of the atmosphere, that we should all be doing anyway, but I'm not sure his justifications are quite right. Humidity is a function of temperature, not the other way around, and it's the increased CO₂ that's always going to be the problem since although water vapour has a stronger effect, it has a very short cycle time, a matter of hours or days, whereas that of CO₂ is measured in decades. This makes elevated CO₂ a very bad problem to have. Jehne doesn't help himself by misquoting and misrepresenting the 1967 Manabe & Wetherald paper, either.[2] A doubling of CO₂ from 300 ppm to 600 ppm would increase the temperature by "about 2°C" (it's right there in the abstract), not 0.3°C as he claims. Jon (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works". Skeptical Science. Retrieved 1 May 2020.
  2. ^ Manabe, Syukuro; Wetherald, Richard T. (May 1967). "Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity". Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences. 24 (3). doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1967)024<0241:TEOTAW>2.0.CO;2. Retrieved 1 May 2020.

Personnel files from Archives New ZealandEdit

Someone is uploading military personnel files to Commons from Archives New Zealand. Is this appropriate? Eddaido (talk) 11:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The files are available online at the National Library of New Zealand, so the upload to commons is not a breach of privacy. However, the National Library has a copyright notice and a Terms of Use which prohibits use for other than personal research, which is incompatible with the CC-BY licence these files were uploaded to Commons with. It may be that the National Library copyright notice is invalid because these files are too old, but in that case a notice that copyright has expired in New Zealand is required. I suggest you raise the issue on Commons.-gadfium 21:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
According to

In cases where we have already published archival material on the website or have made it digitally available on Archway, it is covered by a Creative Commons BY 2.0 license, unless otherwise stated. You are then welcome to use it without seeking permission.

The personnel files that have been uploaded are indeed digitally available on Archway, so that should be OK? Paora (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks both. My question was more in the spirit of "we all know he must have a personnel file in there somewhere (in the National Archives) but do we Really need to have a photo of it on his WP biography?" Its "appropriateness" that bothers me. I know access is easy and I may have put in live links to the same sources for biographies I've attempted to embellish. Its the raw data being pushed at me on the WP page that makes me feel uncomfortable. Maybe I'm over-sensitive. Eddaido (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm a little late to this dicussion, but it's important to realise that these are primary sources and need to be treated with extreme caution. For an example, Archibald Baxter is an individual whose military history records are unlikely to paint a true account of this time in his life. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

2018 demographicsEdit

I propose to add 2018 census data to articles on New Zealand locations using a script I have written. The script reads data from comma-separated files provided for download from and creates mediawiki markup, which I will manually paste into the articles and check for any errors. The data will replace the 2013 census data which I placed in some articles earlier using a variant of this script.

The script is capable of combining multiple area units. Can I have some feedback on the result before I start adding this to articles. I append results for Ahipara, a small town corresponding to a single area unit, and Kaitaia, a larger town corresponding to two area units. For Ahipara, the script reports the median income, but for Kaitaia this is omitted because I cannot combine the median values of multiple lists and get a meaningful result.

The data I'm using will not be the same as earlier data for the 2013 and 2006 censuses because the 2018 data reinterprets area boundaries.

Are there additional items of information that I should be adding? The raw data covers the last three censuses, but I've only included earlier data for total population. Can my wording be improved? I think it's rather dull at present. Is the population from the last three censuses best given in text, as a table, or both as in the examples? Should I link to the 2006 New Zealand census and 2013 New Zealand census articles?

Statistics New Zealand also present the information they feel is most relevant in a nicely-formatted way. See for an example. This appears to replace the "Quickstats about a place" from the 2013 and 2006 censuses. The data used in the 2018 census place summaries differs slightly from the data I have; they probably used a slightly earlier version. I don't propose to get nearly as fancy as their site, and I don't think we need to provide quite as much of the data. Statistics New Zealand doesn't provide a similar page for Kaitaia, only for the individual area units of Kaitaia East and Kaitaia West.

The script uses a template for the reference, so if the website url changes it can be updated in one place rather than in many articles.

Please add your comments in the discussion section below the examples.-gadfium 04:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Demographics (Ahipara)Edit

Year Population
2006 1,095
2013 1,032
2018 1,230

Ahipara had a population of 1,230 at the 2018 New Zealand census, an increase of 198 people since the 2013 census, and an increase of 135 people since the 2006 census. There were 597 males and 636 females. There were 390 households. 270 people were aged up to 15 years, 204 were 15-29, 564 were 30-64, and 195 were 65 or older. Figures may have been rounded and may not add up to the total.

60.7% were European/Pākehā, 61.2% were Māori, 5.9% were Pacific peoples, 2.0% were Asian, and 2.2% were other ethnicities. People may have more than one nationality.

156 people have a bachelor or higher degree. The median income was $23,600. 381 people were employed fulltime, 147 were parttime, and 78 were unemployed.[1]

Demographics (Kaitaia)Edit

Year Population
2006 5,202
2013 4,887
2018 5,871

Kaitaia had a population of 5,871 at the 2018 New Zealand census, an increase of 984 people since the 2013 census, and an increase of 669 people since the 2006 census. There were 2,799 males and 3,072 females. There were 1,881 households. 1,590 people were aged up to 15 years, 1,179 were 15-29, 2,196 were 30-64, and 909 were 65 or older. Figures may have been rounded and may not add up to the total.

49.9% were European/Pākehā, 65.9% were Māori, 7.9% were Pacific peoples, 5.2% were Asian, and 1.2% were other ethnicities. People may have more than one nationality.

348 people have a bachelor or higher degree. 1,452 people were employed fulltime, 531 were parttime, and 483 were unemployed.[2]

Demographics (Canterbury District Health Board)Edit

Year Population
2006 467,016
2013 482,778
2018 539,631

Canterbury DHB had a population of 539,631 at the 2018 New Zealand census, an increase of 56,853 people since the 2013 census, and an increase of 72,615 people since the 2006 census. There were 269,550 males and 270,081 females. There were 200,694 households. Of the total population, 98,541 people were aged up to 15 years, 111,957 were 15 to 29, 246,159 were 30 to 64, and 82,968 were 65 or older. Figures may have been rounded and may not add up to the total.

Ethnicities were 81.6% European/Pākehā, 9.5% Māori, 3.3% Pacific peoples, 11.8% Asian, and 2.7% other ethnicities. People may have more than one nationality.

In education, 98,127 people had a bachelor or higher degree, and 75,732 people over the age of 15 had no formal qualifications. The median income was $34,200. The employment status was that 226,362 people were employed fulltime, 68,367 were parttime, and 14,703 were unemployed.[3]

Demographics (Waitemata and Gulf Ward)Edit

YearPop.±% p.a.
Source: [4]

Waitemata and Gulf Ward had a population of 92,865 at the 2018 New Zealand census, an increase of 6,450 people (7.5%) since the 2013 census, and an increase of 21,246 people (29.7%) since the 2006 census. There were 38,712 households. There were 46,767 males and 46,101 females, giving a sex ratio of 1.01 males per female. Of the total population, 9,390 people (10.1%) were aged up to 15 years, 31,755 (34.2%) were 15 to 29, 43,053 (46.4%) were 30 to 64, and 8,667 (9.3%) were 65 or older. Figures may not add up to the total due to rounding.

Ethnicities were 63.4% European/Pākehā, 6.7% Māori, 4.8% Pacific peoples, 28.5% Asian, and 5.6% other ethnicities. People may identify with more than one ethnicity.

Although some people objected to giving their religion, 55.0% had no religion, 27.9% were Christian, and 12.1% had other religions.

In education, 37,311 people had a bachelor or higher degree, and 4,566 people over the age of 15 had no formal qualifications. The median income was $38,600. The employment status was that 45,783 people were employed fulltime, 13,071 were parttime, and 3,450 were unemployed.[4]


  1. ^ "Statistical area 1 dataset for 2018 Census". Statistics New Zealand. March 2020. Ahipara (100600).
  2. ^ "Statistical area 1 dataset for 2018 Census". Statistics New Zealand. March 2020. Kaitaia East (100700) and Kaitaia West (100800).
  3. ^ "Statistical area 1 dataset for 2018 Census". Statistics New Zealand. March 2020. Canterbury (18).
  4. ^ a b "Statistical area 1 dataset for 2018 Census". Statistics New Zealand. March 2020. Waitemata and Gulf Ward (07605).


I have since used the script to update Grey District, as the population section there had very old data. The final line of the section is not from the script; I manually adapted it from the earlier content.-gadfium 01:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I haven't had any feedback, so I'll start using my script later today. For a list of the articles which use the script, see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:NZ census 2018.-gadfium 21:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • This is awesome! To respond to your questions: yes, you should link the 2006 and 2013 census articles. I'd give population data both as prose and in a table (different people take in information in different ways). You need to use endashes for the year ranges as per MOS:RANGE but perhaps it should even read "204 were 15 to 29, 564 were 30 to 64, ..." to be in strict compliance with the Manual of Style. Schwede66 21:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, agree it's great! Another point: as per MOS:NUMNOTES, you should revise the prose to avoid starting a sentence with a figure if possible. Paora (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I've added 'to' between ages, linked to the earlier censuses (although there's no article on the 2006 census) and reworded sentences to avoid starting with a number. I also added the number of people without formal qualifications to balance the number with a degree. I'd welcome any suggestions for better flowing wording. The example is Canterbury DHB, above. I haven't altered my earlier examples.-gadfium 04:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I should say "75,732 people aged at least 15 had no formal qualifications", or is it clear in context that this includes 15 year olds? The census field is called "Census_2018_Highest_qualification_000_No_qualification_CURP_15years_and_over".-gadfium 04:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Cool. That there isn't a 2006 census article yet isn't a problem; at some point, there will be one. I'm curious about the CDHB example as in the text, you talk about "Canterbury" when you would need to talk about "the area covered by the CDHB". The DHB boundaries don't necessarily align with regional boundaries. For a start, we have the South Canterbury District Health Board (covering the area around Timaru). Some of the DHB boundaries are outright weird. Schwede66 04:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
The script takes a name out of the census data, but this sometimes lacks context, and if the script is combining multiple areas it just takes the name of the first area, which is enough for me to see it's got the right records but usually needs editing. I manually edited the example to say "Canterbury DHB" after initially posting it, but saying "The area covered by..." would have been an improvement. I chose a DHB for the example because it has a much higher population than the other examples, and might be a body that many people wouldn't realise had explicit census coverage.-gadfium 05:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Further development of the script, thanks to @Lcmortensen: for editing the output at Marlborough Region. The changes are:

  1. Use the {{historical populations}} template to show the table, which adds the per annum changes.
  2. Add a name for the reference, so it can easily be reused.
  3. Include percentages for the population changes and for the age ranges.
  4. Include the ratio of males to females.
  5. Tweak the wording of "Figures may not add up to the total due to rounding." and "People may identify with more than one ethnicity."
  6. Include religious adherence. For most places, the numbers who have no religion, or are Christians, dominate, making up over 90% of those who answered the census question, and no more than 3% belonging to any other religion. The example above has a higher number of "other religions" than most areas, but the largest of the other religions is still less than 4.5%.

The latest example, for Waitamata and Gulf Ward, is above. Always happy to consider other changes.-gadfium 03:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I was going to suggest the changes here, but I decided to edit Marlborough Region first to see how it looked. I added percentages since raw numbers are a bit hard for the mind to understand. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 06:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Shall I add percentages to the education and employment paragraph too?-gadfium 06:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
It may be good to have them as percentages. After all, we talk about there potentially being 10% unemployment due to COVID-19.Lcmortensen (mailbox) 22:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I presume the percentages for both education and employment should use as the total the number of people aged over 15, as that's what the census is measuring. Eg the no qualification number is described as Census_2018_Highest_qualification_000_No_qualification_CURP_15years_and_over. My percentage calculation will be Number_displayed * 100 / (Total_population - Age_under_15), and I'll change the start of the paragraph to say "For those over 15 ...."-gadfium 02:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I've now added the script output to the articles on the South Island regions. Use the link near the top of this section to see which articles contain its output. The script takes a second or two to run for each area, pasting the result into Wikipedia would take a few minutes, but integrating it into existing content can take quite some time when the article already has detailed older demographic information, as most of the region articles do. I'm quite happy to repeat the process with the region articles if further improvements are suggested, but once I get into the dozens of articles I'll be a bit more reluctant to repeat the earlier work.-gadfium 04:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I've updated the North Island region articles. For Northland Region, I updated the existing table of Ethnic groups of Northland residents to cover 2006-18 census data, which took quite a lot of effort because I did it by hand. Several other articles have similar tables, and I have left those alone for now. I noticed that Lcmortensen updated the table in Canterbury, New Zealand. @Lcmortensen:, if you have a script to automate this, let me know and I'll leave it to you (or you can send me a copy of your script), otherwise I might write a script to generate these tables sometime in the non-immediate future. In general, I have removed 2006 data from these articles as being too old to be useful, and I have kept 2013 data unless the 2018 data is a reasonable replacement for it.

On Bay of Plenty, I manually updated a paragraph about the number of people born overseas and the number speaking Māori. If the number of people born overseas and the number who speak Māori are considered worth-while statistics to add to my script, I can do that easily. Any other data items I should add?-gadfium 04:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The tables are another way of expressing ethnicity, but I think it will be better to delete most of them and express it as prose per Gadfium's script. The regional articles and some of the larger cities may justify the timeline-like table as seen at Canterbury, New Zealand, but I think it will be easier to do manually.
The number of people who were born overseas is a worth-while statistic. For example, Auckland and Queenstown-Lakes have more than 40% of their populations born overseas. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 06:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Gadfium: Just so you know, we have now a complete set of DHB articles. Schwede66 21:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I've added demographics to each of those, apart from the historical articles, and for Northland, Tairawhiti and West Coast DHBs, the numbers were identical to the corresponding region, so I didn't think it appropriate to duplicate them. I left MidCentral alone as you'd already done a decent job of adding demographics. For South Canterbury, I added my content but it could be better integrated with yours. For Taranaki and Hawke's Bay, the numbers were very close to the numbers for the regions, but not identical, so I added them. Presumably the boundaries were once identical but some small areas have moved between regions.-gadfium 00:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Further minor improvements to the script, thanks to @Lcmortensen: for editing the output at Lower Hutt. I've added the median age (only when a single statistical area is used), and tweaked the wording in a few places. I am not planning to go back and change the 185 previous runs of the script, but the improvements will apply to all articles I run it for from now on, and the script will be the basis for future census results. You can see the new output at Tapora, and compare with the old at Wellsford.-gadfium 04:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

There was an error in the original SA1 dataset which caused the median age to be suppressed. Stats NZ released the updated version on 28 April 2020, which was after the first version of the script was released. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 06:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Related questionEdit

I note that there are a large number of Foo District articles missing, i.e. those territorial authorities that are districts: Rotorua Lakes, Whakatāne District, Kawerau District, Ōpōtiki District, Wairoa District, Hastings District, Stratford District, New Zealand, Masterton District, Carterton District, Ashburton District

The situation is even worse for Foo City, as it applies to a higher proportion of city articles: Hamilton City, New Zealand, Tauranga City (which is a dab page), Napier City, Palmerston North City, Porirua City, Upper Hutt City, Hutt City, Invercargill City

In some cases, we have Foo City Council articles that cover the territorial (or unitary) authority, and to me the question is whether, for consistency, they should be at Foo City: Wellington City Council, Nelson City Council, Christchurch City Council, Dunedin City Council. That said, I note we have separate articles for Taupo: Taupo District and Taupo District Council.

My thoughts are:

  • We should make a concerted effort to get the missing district articles, with the demographics data a good base that can be added to.
  • We should decide whether "Council" should or should not be part of the article name, and then be consistent across all territorial authorities.
  • We should get the remaining city articles set up; this would mostly be by splitting content off.

Your thoughts would be welcome. Schwede66 22:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking I would create the various missing District articles as I work my way down the country, but I expect that will take me a few years as I intend to create articles on localities as necessary, e.g. Kapiro.-gadfium 23:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Ok. In that case, I might beat you to it. Schwede66 21:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Some thoughts off the top of my head:
I think it is fine to have both an article for the TA area (e.g. Taupo District) and another for the council (e.g. Taupo District Council). But where articles currently don't have enough content for two such articles, I would make the article title for the area, and include any council info in that article. Later, when content about the council warrants a separate article, it can be created.
In some cases I'm not sure that we need a "City" article in addition to the existing article that has a title omitting "City". For example, Hamilton City covers more-or-less the same area as the Hamilton, New Zealand article. So maybe it's fine to just retain such articles under their current names, with the article making it clear that it covers the formal City as well. (Per my previous paragraph, there is also the option of a City Council article when the amount of content warrants it. E.g. we have Nelson, New Zealand and Nelson City Council, with no need for a Nelson City, New Zealand, except as a redirect.)
The biggest needs are the creation of certain district articles. It has always seemed odd to me that Hastings District is covered by Hastings, New Zealand, which I would expect to be about only the city of Hastings, not the vast, mostly rural District. Nurg (talk) 03:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Some progress update. It turns out that there is a complete set of entries for foo district and foo city on Wikidata (one foo city entry was missing but I've fixed that). Next, I've gone through Commons and created category entries for all foo districts (several dozen were missing). Then, I rationalised the Wikidata links, with some links to the main entry and others with a link to Wikimedia category (Q4167836); they are all linked to the main entry now. I'm not sure whether me changing the latter causes any issues (if so, please be in touch). In working with the Wikidata entries, I spotted that the German Wikipedia has (slightly) more articles on our districts than we do, and often with more content. Crikey! Anyway, I'll write some of the missing articles when I get round to it. Schwede66 08:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I did a lot of work on these last year in Wikidata, making sure there was an item for each district and region, and splitting the territorial authority/council items from the district items. What was the missing one? If it was Porirua (I saw you created a council item Porirua City (Q94169870)), there was already an item for the TA (Porirua City Council (Q73439814)), so I converted it into a district (as there was one for the city and one for the council, but not one for the district). --Canley (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Ah, I was amazed at the Wikidata quality. It's your good work; now I understand. Yes, it was Porirua (and technically, Rotorua also used to be a city I learned yesterday). Schwede66 03:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


The change of statistical areas from earlier censuses mean we do not have a reasonably current population for many of the small towns that were covered by the 2013 census, for example Te Kōpuru. I will update these using meshblock data, but I am not aware of a source for populations by meshblock at the time of the 2018 census. I can find 2020 populations, and will use those if someone can assure me that an "electoral population" (divided between general and Māori elctorates) is the same as total population, rather than the number of eligible voters. Is there a better reference to use than the map I linked to above?-gadfium 23:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the meshblocks around Te Kōpuru, I see that a couple of them have -999 as the Māori Electoral Population. One such is 0125100. Perhaps this is a code to mean there are no such electors in that meshblock, as 0 mean be construed to mean "no data". Is this explained anywhere? There's a .csv file available of these meshblocks with 2020 population at [3]
"−999" means the population value is suppressed because it is less than 6. I would expect "electoral population" to mean registered electors, but according to the Electoral Act 1993: "General electoral population means total ordinarily resident population as shown in the last periodical census of population and dwellings with the exception of the Maori electoral population"—however would that mean the Māori electoral population is based on the electoral roll? --Canley (talk) 02:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, that's helpful. The meshblock data gives two population figures, General_Electoral_Population and Maori_Electoral_Population, so I can add those together to get a total population, and I'll normally be dealing with multiple meshblocks to fit a locality, so excluding the numbers less than 6 won't be a big problem. I'll note that the population is approximate where -999 is in the mix.-gadfium 03:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

50,000 Destubbing Challenge Focus of the WeekEdit

Hello there. This is an invitation to join the 50,000 Destubbing Challenge Focus of the Week. £250 (c. $310) is being given away in May, June and July with £20 worth of prizes to give away every week for most articles destubbed. Each week there is a different region of focus, including the last week dedicated to NZ and Oceania, though half the prize will still be rewarded for articles on any subject. There's a potential £120 to be won in total for destubbing on any subject or region of your choice. Sign up if you want to contribute at least one of the weeks or support the idea! † Encyclopædius 12:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Seeking helpers - Water and irrigation in New ZealandEdit

It is surprising that there is currently no article on Irrigation in New Zealand, given how important irrigation is to agriculture, the large scale of investment, and the controversies associated with many schemes. (There is a [Category:Irrigation in New Zealand] but no article). Further, the top level article about water, Water in New Zealand is not well developed. I have put more detailed comments on the talk page Talk:Water in New Zealand.

I am interested in working on these topics but it is a big project and it would be great to have one or two others to share ideas and develop content. Please get in touch if you would like to contribute. Marshelec (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Missing/broken referencesEdit

I'm trying to make a dent in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors, and a few articles within the NZ sphere have issues that I can't fix on my own (~2549 issue as of writing). Basically, some refs linked via {{sfn}} and {{harvnb}} and similar have missing full citations or have some other problems. You can check these instructions to have error messages enabled (Svick's script is the simplest to use, but Trappist's script is a bit more refined if you're interested in doing deeper cleanup).

In particular, the following articles could use some of your attention



The cause is often copy-pasting a short reference from another article without copy-pasting the full reference. If you can find where things were copy-pasted from, you can usually find what the full reference is.

Thanks for any help you can give! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I have struck out the ones I have fixed (or at least, the red errors from Svick's script no longer appear). I looked for the referenced works from the 1893 and 1974 elections but couldn't find them in similar articles.-gadfium 20:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I've now done all that I can do. The remaining three might be typos in the year, but people who are more familiar with these references are better suited to fixing them.-gadfium 21:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Wilson 1985 is correct; see d:Q20483210 (the confusion must have arisen as Wilson covers the period until 1984). Schwede66 23:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


  • There have been four editions of New Zealand Parliamentary Record and the third one came out in 1950. See the Wikidata entry. Note that I have editions 3 and 4, so if anybody needs something confirmed/looked up, please ping me. That said, Scholefield 1940 will refer to Dictionary of New Zealand Biography (1940). That work has been digitised and is freely available; I shall add the external links (split into two books) to the article. Schwede66 10:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Done the easy ones of this second set.-gadfium 03:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Here's another one, on top of the above two (in bold) that still needs doing:

  • 1865 Town of New Plymouth by-election - references McIntyre 1980, can't find any likely candidates. @Schwede66:, you added this, presumably it refers to "The Journal of Henry Sewell 1853-57", though that seems too early as the reference is for 1860 or 1861.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Yeah, sorry. My stuff up. It's that book; it's in the last chapter called "Aftermath". That's why it's outside of the year range that the book title talks about. Schwede66 10:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


"The Marutūāhu tribes are descended from Marutūāhu, a son of Hotunui, who is said to have arrived in New Zealand on the Tainui canoe"

This is incorrect. Marutuahu was the son of Hotunui (II) who lived 9 generations after Hotunui (I).

Te Rangikaiwhiria Kemara — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The source for the content at Marutūāhu might be Polynesian Mythology and Ancient Traditional History of the New Zealand Race: The Story of Maru-Tuahu, the Son of Hotunui, and of Kahurere-Moa, the Daughter of Paka by Sir George Grey, 1885.
A source suggesting Hotunui was a later person is Story: Marutūahu tribes in Te Ara, which uses as one of its sources Graham, George. ‘Marutuahu.’ Journal of the Polynesian Society 50 (1941)
I also found an oral history interview recorded in 1946 by the NBS Mobile Unit which supports Hotunui being a later person.
Do you have any source which shows the later Hotunui as being a descendant of the voyager Hotunui?-gadfium 22:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
This discussion can be moved to Talk:Marutūāhu once it is concluded

Living New Zealand dames and knightsEdit

I'm currently working towards this article in my sandbox, based on Living Australian knights and dames (I thought we'd list the ladies first in the title as per the manners my mother had taught me) but we can probably have a column for photos, too. My intention is to compile the complete list from Wikidata, and I have the following workplan:

  • go through the various honours lists, back to about 1970 (an Australian who was knighted in 1972 is still alive)
  • create red links for those where there isn't a link yet; determine the WP:COMMONNAME
  • see whether there are photos on Commons; if yes create a commons category and if not, see whether there are photos on the governors-general website (which are freely licensed)
  • link the commons category to Wikidata
  • amend (or create) the Wikidata entry, with the critical items:
New Year Honours
Birthday Honours
Special Honours
Jubilee Honours
Royal Visit Honours

Note that receiving a regular honour confirms that the recipient is a New Zealand citizen. Non-citizens are eligible for honorary awards only. Feel free to chip in if you wish and if you do, please note progress in the worklist. Paora, given that you do most of the (rather valuable) work on the award lists you'll get a ping; I'm sure you'll be interested in this project. Schwede66 20:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I've done many of the Australian lists and associated Wikidata work, so happy to help if needed. --Canley (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Correction - citizens of other Commonwealth countries where the Queen is head of state (e.g. UK, Canada, Australia) are also eligible for ordinary awards (see]). I should note the investiture ceremonies of the 2020 New Years Honours recipents have been delayed due to COVID-19, so their photos aren't available. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 00:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
How interesting; that is in direct contradiction to what it says in the nomination form under the heading "Non-New Zealand Citizens", where it states: "Non-New Zealanders are eligible for honorary awards." Schwede66 01:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, Lcmortensen is correct. For example, Neville Wran, an Australian, got a substantive CNZM in the 2010 New Year Honours. It's probably not necessary to go back quite so far in compiling the list: I've had a look at the Air New Zealand Almanac from 1988, edited by Max Lambert, which gives a list of living New Zealand knights and dames as of 30 June 1988, and going through the list the earliest recipient of a knighthood or damehood still living today appears to be Miriam Dell, who received her honour in the 1980 New Year Honours. And yes, happy to help out on the project. Paora (talk) 04:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
That's awesome! Thanks. Schwede66 06:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Here's a quick and dirty SPARQL query attempting to get what you are after – there's a lot of assumptions so feel free to suggest or make any refinements: that the dame/knighthood titles are a subclass of knight/dame, and that they have New Zealand citizenship on their Wikidata item, and that they are still alive if there is no date of death on Wikidata. --Canley (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

That's exactly what we need and aligns with my thinking. Get this right on Wikidata and that'll give us a list. What you could do is to add a few things to the output and eventually, exporting that to CSV can be the input for a list entry:
  • gender (so that we can differentiate between dames and knights)
  • image (if we want to proceed with adding images to the tables)
  • surname (if we want to have the lists sorted by surname)
Thanks heaps! Schwede66 01:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Here's a query with gender, images and family names (some surnames are missing Wikidata items though, but I can add these). I'd like to add the "point in time" qualifier so it will include the year granted, but I'll need to think about that as querying qualifiers is a bit complicated. There's some non-Commonwealth honours like Knight of the Order of Saint John, Chevalier des Arts et des Lettres, German Cross of the Order of Merit, not sure if you want to include these or not. --Canley (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
That's grand; thank you! I've fixed the missing surnames. With regards to inclusion, what the Australians suggest is that it should be part of orders, decorations, and medals of the United Kingdom. If we adopt that also, then the Knight of the Order of Saint John is in and the other two are not. That works for me, but what do others think? Schwede66 10:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
My feeling is that Knights and Dames of the Order of St John should not be included, as the accolade does not confer a title of "Sir" or "Dame", and it is essentially an award for members of a particular organisation, rather than being available to everyone. I would also argue that Knights and Dames of the Order of St John are not inherently notable, whereas holders of substantive knighthoods and damehoods are. I agree that the other various French, German, Papal etc titles ought not be included.
In terms of what should be included in the table, I'd suggest something similar to the list of members of the Order of New Zealand or the Order of Merit:
Name Portrait Honour Date of appointment Known for Present
Dame Miriam Dell
Miriam Dell ONZ 2009 (cropped).jpg Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire 31 December 1979 Women's welfare 96
Sir Michael Fowler Michael Fowler, 1965.jpg Knight Bachelor 13 June 1981 Mayor of Wellington (1974–1983) 90
Include some sorting capability, and no need to include gender, as Dame and Knight essentially does this. The few Principal Companions and Distinguished Companions still living who did not convert to Knight / Dame Grand Companion or Knight / Dame Companion are listed already at New Zealand Order of Merit, and would not be included in the new table (unless they have other qualifying honours, such as Dame Silvia Cartwright). Paora (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Table looks good. Yes to sorting. I wasn't aware of the finer details of the Order of Saint John but what you say makes sense to me (i.e. leave them out). To my mind, the Principal and Distinguished Companions are equivalent to dame or knighthoods and for completeness, we should list them here, even if that doubles up on a list elsewhere. If we didn't include them, it would mean that interested readers have to combine two lists to get the complete picture. If we agree on their inclusion, then gender does make sense as the gong isn't gender-specific. Schwede66 02:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
You are right that the Principal and Distinguished Companions are equal in rank to Knights / Dames Grand Companion and Knights / Dames Companion, but they specifically chose not to convert to a knighthood or damehood. For example, Sam Neill said at the time that he rejected a knighthood because the idea of a title was "just far too grand, by far"; Joy Cowley said that she values her "ordinariness"; and others expressed similar sentiments.[4] So, I think that to include people who explicity declined knighthoods or damehoods in a list of knights and dames would be wrong. I'd be happy with a second table on the new page, or a link to the existing table, rather than integrating everyone into a single table. Paora (talk) 09:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Ok, that's a good enough argument for me. We should discuss that in the article's prose and link to the relevant article. Thanks for all your good thoughts on this. Schwede66 00:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Not long before the background work is done. Exciting; great teamwork! I've written the article itself in my sandbox. Mr Canley, you mentioned the other day that you could produce the table directly from Wikidata. Can you please elaborate how that would work? Also, somebody mentioned to me the other months (can't remember who) that tables produced by Wikidata are a no-no in mainspace; is that true or do you know anything about that? Schwede66 01:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
What we were talking about was Listeria which is a bot/tool which can produce a Wikitable list from a Wikidata query (and regularly update it automatically). My experience in this has been from working on the lists of heritage sites/monuments in Australia for the Wiki Loves Monuments competitions, so I set up a ListeriaBot query for each of the Australian states and territories, for example: commons:Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2019 in Australia/List of Australian heritage sites/List of Australian heritage sites in Victoria/1. Unfortunately, as you say, this is one of several very exciting and useful tools and uses of Wikidata which has not gained traction or consensus on English Wikipedia for use in mainspace, and attempts to do so are often reverted quickly – same for Wikidata infoboxes which are widely used on Commons but not on enwiki. Listeria is used for some project pages and reports like Wikipedia:Database reports/Recent deaths and in other language Wikipedias, but there is a hostility to using Wikidata queries for public facing content on enwiki, the rationale being that someone could vandalise Wikidata and it would not appear on WP watchlists so wouldn't be detected or fixed. In this case, the list is not going to update very often although it may be useful to detect and remove recent deaths. There would be no objection I would think to running the bot query in your user space or a project page, and then copying the content to mainspace as wiki markup, but given the size and scope it is probably manageable to generate a list, convert it to a Wikitable list, and then maintain it manually. --Canley (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Hm, it's also not hard to run the Wikidata query above, download the results as a CSV, write equations for each column, and then copy-paste the lot into the page, followed by manual maintenance. Or is it easy enough to do that in Listeria and then use the same to detect changes, Canley? Schwede66 02:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Heads up; I'll now work on the list itself and convert it to a wikitable. Just so that we don't trip over one another. Schwede66 03:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Do we have an order of precedence for the various knight and damehoods? If so, what is it? Schwede66 04:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
New Zealand Honours Order of Precedence. Sorry I missed your question before, yes, I think just work on the list and format it as a table, probably easier than using Listeria for this task. --Canley (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

post-publication discussionEdit

Published! Thanks, team, that was a good combined effort. As you can see, there are two blank columns ("Date of appointment" and "Known for"). These would be most easy to add by getting the records into Wikidata and once that's complete, if Canley could write us a query I'll add that to my spreadsheet that generates the table. If you make any changes to the photos, say, please also update the default photo that Wikidata uses, so that the same info comes through in later queries. Schwede66 21:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, I have rewritten the query to include the date awarded and the citation (I presumed this is what you meant by "known for"?). If they are not in the item they are blank, so this will help work out where the data is missing). --Canley (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I also did a query to see if there were any non-NZ citizens awarded a New Zealand dame/knighthood—only got Julian Robertson who is an American citizen and was given an honorary KNZM. --Canley (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Good job so far! I note that the table is missing appointees to the Royal Victorian Order, e.g. Don McKinnon. Also I think it is problematic listing in terms of "order of precedence", as that has two meanings: i.e. order of wear as suggested in the article at present, and New Zealand order of precedence, which varies over time as appointments to various positions change. In addition, some of those listed are also Members of the Order of New Zealand, which in terms of honours has a higher order of precedence. So I think it might be simpler to list in order of date of appointment. And I agree that "Known for" could be changed to "Citation", the short-form reason for the award given in the honours list. Lastly, there are a number of people listed who have more than one qualifying honour, e.g. Catherine Tizard and Malvina Major, so I think that all they all should be listed:
Name Portrait Honour Date of appointment Citation Present
Dame Catherine Tizard
Cath Tizard ONZ 2009 (cropped).jpg Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire 31 December 1984 For public and community service 89
Dame Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George 27 November 1990 Governor-General Designate
Dame Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order 1 November 1995 Governor-General of New Zealand
It probably means some additional manual formatting, and may make sorting a problem?
Paora (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I have tweaked the subclasses and filtered out the French and Order of St John honours in this query, so the Royal Victorian Order members (Tizard and McKinnon) should now show up. --Canley (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Right. Maybe we should have discussed this a bit more before I produced the table. Sort order – I'm not set on that. If we do want to have a sortable table, we cannot have more than one line per row. So if we show more than one honour, it has to all sit in the same cell or else sorting won't work any longer. Overall, I think sorting is most useful to have. No trouble with adding who is obviously missing; please go ahead. Schwede66 03:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
So we could do either
Name Portrait Honour Date of appointment Citation Present
Dame Catherine Tizard
Cath Tizard ONZ 2009 (cropped).jpg Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire
Dame Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George
Dame Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order
31 December 1984
27 November 1990
1 November 1995
For public and community service
Governor-General Designate
Governor-General of New Zealand
and sort on the date of the first damehood / knighthood, or we could put each qualifying honour in a separate row. Not too bothered either way, but would probably go for the all-in-one approach above if pushed to choose, so that each person doesn't appear in the table more than once. Paora (talk) 04:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

That table format looks good to me. Schwede66 08:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I've gone through the 1991 edition of Who's Who in New Zealand and pulled out birth dates for everyone who is listed. I don't own the 2001 edition of that book. 31 dames and knights without a known age to go. Schwede66 04:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Found Paul Collins (businessman) in Who's Who in Australia so I've added that. I'll check the others as well... --Canley (talk) 04:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
I think I've pulled out all the relevant entries from New Zealand Who's Who Aotearoa 2001. Paora (talk) 10:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Can someone please grade and add this article to the WikiProject?Edit

I have just published Liam Thompson (YouTuber). Everything is sorted (it meets all the requirements I can find) and is backed up with adequate sources. I believe it is suitable for this WikiProject. Thanks, WBPchur💬✒️💛 01:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

You can add any new article to this Wikiproject yourself by adding {{WPNZ}} to the talk page; subsequently somebody will soon come along and do the grading. A cursory look, though, hasn't left me convinced that the chap is notable (I'll have a closer look later). Schwede66 02:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
He has had multiple news articles and has well over 700,000 subscribers on YouTube. He hence meets the general notability requirements put described on WP:Notability. Significant coverage - yes (NZ mainstream media as in citations). Reliable - I would presume so, not really up for a debate about NZ Herald reliability, and the stats definitely are. Secondary and primary sources used. Independent of the subject: yes. If I am missing something please let me know - cheers. WBPchur💬✒️💛 02:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

Pelorus JackEdit

There's been a discussion on talk:Pelorus Jack about what the occupation of this dolphin should be. I don't believe there's a consensus, but I'd welcome additional input. What, if anything, should the infobox contain if there is no consensus?-gadfium 06:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Too BIG File:New Zealand location map.svgEdit

Its OK when an "article" is just a stub but once there is more than that tis picture very simply gets in the way, big time. In any case its almost as if we have such low regard for our readers we need to hit them over the head with an infant-size image. Can't we do better than this? please. Eddaido (talk) 02:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Eddaido. Because the image is an SVG image, it can be scaled to any size. MOS:IMGSYN has some guidance on setting the size of an image in an article. HenryCrun15 (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to give feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation Brand ProjectEdit

Kia ora koutou, I'm one of the contact people for the Aotearoa NZ Wikimedia User Group and I've received some information about the WF Brand Project, and also been asked to provide feedback from editors in Aotearoa NZ. Below is a link to the presentation by the Brand Project, and the survey questions that we've been asked to respond to. Please put any comments below and I'll collate and submit in the survey. The deadline is 30 June 2020.

Thanks in advance! MurielMary (talk) 05:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you MurielMary for acting as the contact.
There is an active RfC at m:Requests for comment/Should the Foundation call itself Wikipedia‎ which at this point has 41 supports and 450 opposes. Despite this very substantial opposition, the three options we are being presented with are "Wikipedia Network", "Wikipedia Movement" and "Wiki + Wikipedia". It appears in m:Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 movement brand project/Executive statement that the WMF is determined to rebrand regardless of community feedback. Accordingly, rather than choose between three unacceptable options, my feedback to WMF is "Don't devalue the good name of Wikipedia, and listen to the community".-gadfium 23:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your input Gadfium. To update, a significant number of affiliates and individual editors are unhappy with the re-naming process and have written a letter to the Wikimedia Foundation expressing their dissatisfaction. The link is below - you can sign the letter yourself as an individual, or if you believe that the Aotearoa NZ User Group should sign this letter as an affiliate, let's discuss that here too. [[5]] MurielMary (talk) 09:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The census ethinicty data is wrongEdit

On this page, in the ethnicity table, if you add the population of the different ehnic groups, it exceeds the total population. Moreover, if you add up the percentages of each group, you get 120%. The data seems incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

A person can have more than one ethnicity (and can claim more than one on the census). The census data in the source says "Where a person reported more than one ethnic group, they were counted in each applicable group" [my emphasis], which is why the percentages total over 100% and the totals exceed the population. --Canley (talk) 19:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

New Zealand localitiesEdit


82.5% done



100% done



I've tweeted about work that I've done on New Zealand localities (Canterbury and Otago) and one of the outcomes was a desire by Mike to do similar work in the Wairarapa. The aim would be to have:

  • a clean set of localities on Wikidata that can form the basis of other work, in particular
  • navigation templates for territorial authorities (many are very incomplete, others do not yet exist)

Each Wikidata item should have the following (and if you are challenged by terminology, please see this introduction):

Just to avoid confusion, a locality in this context is a place with an entry in the New Zealand Gazetteer that is populated. The way the items ought to be organised should be by territorial authority (i.e. a district or city council) by default, and the regional council should also be identified if the district spans across more than one region (there are only a handful of districts where this applies). Most existing entries are defined by region only and that's not helpful.

To make matters worse, there are two different geographic definitions for regions in use:

  • we would all think of a region as the boundaries defined for our 16 regional councils
  • Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) has 11 Land Districts and nine of them use the same name as a regional council, but mostly with quite different boundaries

Here's an attempt to explain the differences. What you see from this that you only three regional councils fully fall into the equivalent survey district (Northland, Gisborne, Wellington, and Nelson):

Land Districts Regional councils Notes
North Auckland Northland (all of) & Auckland (most of) overlaps into Waikato
South Auckland Waikato (most of) & Bay of Plenty (two thirds of) & Hawke's Bay (a little bit) & Manawatu-Wanganui (a little bit) very messy boundaries; covers four regions
Gisborne Gisborne (all of) & Hawke's Bay (a bit) & Bay of Plenty (a third of) somewhat messy boundaries; covers three regions
Taranaki Waikato (a little bit) & Taranaki (most of) & Manawatu-Wanganui (some of) somewhat messy boundaries; covers three regions
Wellington Manawatu-Wanganui (most of) & Taranaki (a little bit) & Hawke's Bay (a little bit) & Waikato (a little bit) & Wellington (all of) very messy boundaries; covers five regions
Nelson Nelson (all of) & Marlborough (some of) & Tasman (all of) & West Coast (some of) very messy boundaries; covers four regions
Marlborough Marlborough (most of) & Canterbury (some of) somewhat messy boundaries; covers two regions
Westland West Coast (most of) & Southland (a little bit) somewhat messy boundaries; covers two regions and a huge chunk of the West Coast falls into the Nelson Land District
Canterbury Canterbury (most of) & Marlborough (a little bit) reasonably clean, but a large chunk of the Canterbury region falls into the Otago Land District
Otago Otago (most of) & Canterbury (some of) & Southland (a little bit) messy boundaries; covers three regions
Southland Southland (most of) and Otago (a little bit) most of the Otago / Southland boundary does not match

It would seem that on Wikidata, the current definition of d:Property:P131 (located in the administrative territorial entity) often comes from bot runs that use the LINZ database as the ultimate source for this information. Hence where a locality falls into a different regional council as per the LINZ survey region, the entry is often wrong.

There are no right or wrong ways to go about this but I offer the observation that the Māori Wikipedia has a set of bot-generated stubs for localities that is more extensive than the list of localities on the English Wikipedia. The Wikidata items linked to the Māori WP are often poor; many items have no descriptors at all beyond the article name. And because of the poor data quality, there is often a duplicate Wikidata item for articles in other languages. Hence part of the exercise needs to be that we identify those Wikidata entries that ought to be merged. (to be continued) Schwede66 20:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, you've pretty much nailed all the issues I have encountered doing about a dozen of these a day for several months! The Mix'n'Match for localities is here. I did an analysis a few days ago of how far Wikidata is through the NZ Gazetteer list of localities and put a progress bar at the top of this discussion, so about 32% (1246/3898) of localities on LINZ are linked to Wikidata items. I would like to automate the import to make this process quicker, but the miwiki bot run (and the Cebuano bot to a lesser extent) and the land district issue complicate this a bit, and I quite enjoy using the "human touch" on these. Also two more points: suburbs are in pretty poor shape as well, and some places have old or multiple names which appear in the Mix'n'Match and Gazetteer (I have included both and set to preferred rank if the name is official, but this will appear in the constraint violation reports for the property). --Canley (talk) 23:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
There are 144 that are classed as "human settlement" on Wikidata, so I've added those to the progress bar and will fix them up as localities soon. --Canley (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
I have been chipping away at these as a little hobby task since last year, but your interest and work on the same has prompted me to get serious about finishing this, especially as I now realise after all the work that you and I have done we are only about 1/3 complete! The land district issue should be easy to resolve: I have completely ignored the LINZ districts and deliberately excluded them from the Mix'n'Match catalogue because I realised they would be misleading to people working on it. I can also check where the wrong district has been applied — I am using GIS software to match the district to the coordinates, so I can do that for all localities very easily. I have written a query of Wikidata items with sitelinks to the Māori Wikipedia but no statements. I have not tried to match these before—because they have no detail I can't be sure if they are about the locality, or a hill or marae or something else. What I am thinking of doing is scanning the text of the Māori Wikipedia articles for the word "nohanga" or something to better determine if it is the locality—because they are bot-generated they all have the same structure so this should work. Anyway, I'll work on it over the weekend and add updates to this discussion. --Canley (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I just realised an easier way to deal with the miwiki robo-stubs: they are categorised into 16 region categories such as Category:Nohanga o Te Moana-a-Toi – if I apply a parent category, say Category:Nohanga o Aotearoa to each of these, then I can use PetScan to get all the articles nested in that category and their Wikidata item numbers. --Canley (talk) 00:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Ha! Had read this over lunch and came back to it to point out exactly that. Yes, the categorisation should be complete as it was achieved as part of the bot run. And here's a link to that category. Schwede66 02:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Great minds and all that! Here is the PetScan query of the miwiki items and their Wikidata ID (2,8067 found; there was one without a Wikidata item). --Canley (talk) 02:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

George Denton ParkEdit

The article about George Denton Park has been given categories for a person and also added to Wikidata as a human male. I had begun to amend the Wikidata item before discovering the WP categorisation, reverted my changes and seek resolution by an editor more experienced than myself in this situation. Oronsay (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I've put a split proposal on the article and sorted out Wikidata. Further discussion is best to be had on the article's talk page. Schwede66 00:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@Schwede66: Many thanks. Oronsay (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)