Talk:New Zealand

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archived discussions

Auckland[edit]

Given that Australia also appears in the Oceania section, I corrected Auckland to being the largest city in NZ (it comes out 5th largest in Ocrania, after Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth) —The preceding comment was added by Dazyndara (talkcontribs) at about 08:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Australia is often not regarded as being in Oceania, but rather the major component (along with PNG, etc) in Australasia. That was just one of the reasons that the text, until today read Polynesia! -- Alice 08:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
But in our hierarchy, it is in Oceania, so we should be consistent. --Inas (talk) 08:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Yep, see Oceania. I have usually thought of Australia being a part of Oceania, for what it's worth. AHeneen (talk) 08:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes that is a major flaw with our hierarchy, so I'll revert to what it was before today. Largest city in Polynesia. Oceania, for many, consists only of Mela, Micro and Poly nesia... -- Alice 08:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree largest city in Poly is best. There is no reason Australia can't be in Oceania and Australasia, the same way as PNG is in Melanesia as well as Australasia. Overlapping regions - too hard. Oceania is commonly understood, and the region Australia is assigned to in many geopolitical contexts. --Inas (talk) 08:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
That was the diplomatic solution we arrived at before. This argument has been rambling on at WP almost since I started editing there: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oceania&oldid=154489221#Australasia_again Got very busy now that the banner is at WP, eh?-- Alice 09:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

State Highway abbreviation?[edit]

Should we agree to standardise on the abbreviation SHn (where n is the official number of the State Highway) and without any spaces, at least in listings ?
(eg: SH58 as seen here ) -- Alice 21:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Re space or no space before the number:
  • NZ Transit sometimes does it unspaced, eg, at [1]
  • NZ Transit sometimes does it spaced, eg, at [2]
  • NZ Post says "abbreviate 'State Highway' to 'SH' (eg. 'SH 1')" [3]
  • Tenancy Info NZ says "there should be a space between 'SH' and the number" [4]
  • List of New Zealand State Highways at WP has spaces.
  • Google finds 429,000 for "state highway" "sh 1" site:nz, and 57,000 for "state highway" "sh1" site:nz
Personally I find it more readable with a space. And it is helpful for the first use of a term to be unabbreviated. Nurg (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
So we can agree that we ought to agree on a consistent abbreviation to use at least in listings but we still need to discuss with or without a space?
I can definitely agree that it is helpful for the first use of a term to be unabbreviated in articles (the MoS is for us regular editors to consult, not for the casual reader in order to understand our articles).
The rationale for choosing no spaces is twofold:
1) I suspect that casual German and British editors are more likely to employ it (being used to the forms B4 and M1/A1 respectively) anyway
2) it saves me the bother of incessantly having to go around afterwards and complete the deeply boring task of adding " "
It's also one less keystroke when putting in original text for itineraries and such like.
Government usage is quite variable (with the spaced form pre-dominating), but all those electronic roadside signs I see for passes or tunnels closed or roadworks seem to use the shorter "no-space" form - presumably for a similar reason to my preference. That might be another reason to choose the non-spaced form, travellers will usually see the graphic form in maps and permanent road signs - a red shield with just the SH number in white written on it.
Incidentally, what's the trick to getting google.co.nz to display the number of hits, please? -- Alice 01:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I just search for these exact, entire strings:
  • "state highway" "sh 1" site:nz
  • "state highway" "sh1" site:nz
Nurg (talk) 07:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
But if go to google.co.nz and enter any search whatever, I can not see any display of number of hits (unlike google.com.sg, where right underneath the search box it will display About 48,500 results (0.25 seconds) if I search for "SH 6" new zealand and About 637,000 results (0.33 seconds) if I search for "SH6" new zealand - ie with no spaces) How do you force the NZ site to display number of hits, please? -- Alice 08:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't do anything in partic. It's just there. I get the search box, below that "Web Images Maps More Search tools", and below that the result count and time taken. I wondered if it is a browser diff but I have just tried with IE8, Ff and Chrome and it is there with all. I wonder if you have cache or cookie data for google.co.nz dating back to when Google experimented with removing the count. Nurg (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
It wouldn't hurt to standardise on one form here, although I don't think it's a high priority, especially since usage elsewhere is mixed. I don't find the arguments about saving a character or avoiding the need for   (which should only be needed occasionally anyway) very convincing. We should be more concerned about what's best for our readers than our editors. I'd suggest that since usage elsewhere is predominantly spaced, we should follow that form, e.g. "SH 1". And yes, the first occurrence should typically be unabbreviated. --Avenue (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
So, if I have understood comments correctly, there seems to be a clear consensus here that
1) It would be a good idea to standardise on either SHn or SH n (where n is the official number of the State Highway) but it's no big deal either way
2) The first occurrence should typically be unabbreviated
There does not yet seem to be a clear consensus as to which to choose, the longer or the shorter commonly used abbreviation.
I would like to advocate again for the adoption of the shorter form as our standard.
If we are concerned about readability, then the non-breaking space sandwich construction is not an entirely trivial point. Rather than only being needed occasionally, if we adopt the longer form as our New Zealand standard, it should always be used for the same reason it is mandated elsewhere, eg: Units#Avoid orphaned units. Since folks read our guide on screens with different widths and operating systems, the only way we can ensure that this sort of orphaned appearance is avoided:

after passing the plastic Kiwi on the corner of Tasman St, fork left onto SH
6 and continue until you will see an electronic sign displaying whether SH
65 is open or not after the recent washouts

is to also suggest that all editors use an "SH-non-breaking-space-number-sandwich".
Since (for the reasons I outlined earlier in this sub-section) visitors to New Zealand will be more likely to have encountered the un-spaced version of the abbreviation on both electronic and hand-written temporary signs, from our readers perspective, the un-spaced version of the abbreviation is actually marginally preferable.
Since SHn is actually 6 keystrokes shorter (and much easier for casual editors to employ than SH n, I really do have a strong preference for the former, shorter abbreviation. -- Alice 23:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd really like to resolve this; it's really tedious having to add in those non-breaking spaces where editors have decided to use the longer, space form themselves and either do not know about our "avoid orphans" policy or overlook implementing it with their edits. Could we just standardise on the shorter form for the reasons advanced above? (It really seems to go against the Kiwi grain to make things unnecessarily longwinded...) -- Alice 21:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
The argument for no spaces is convincing to me. --Inas (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

{{consensus|type=consensus|Unless further reasons to the contrary emerge in the next couple of days,

1) In New Zealand articles, standardise on the non-spaced abbreviation SHn (where n is the official number of the State Highway) but it's no big deal and there are probably much better ways to spend your time than hunting down aberrant forms.
2) The first occurrence should typically be unabbreviated and with the abbreviated form shown in round brackets afterwards. eg: "State Highway 6 (SH6)" -- Alice 22:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)}}

Since this discussion started, the code for a non-breaking space has been added to the edittools, so 6 keystrokes can be replaced with one mouse-click. I still think the space improves readability (which I put ahead of editor convenience), and is the more common usage on the web. I'm not really swayed by the casual German and British editors, or the saving of space. I don't see any consensus, with Avenue and I favouring the spaced form, and Alice and Inas the unspaced form. Nurg (talk) 06:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that addition's made it a bit easier, but a lot of editors either won't know that or just don't bother to use it. I do understand that some think the spaced version is easier to read in prose - but this argument is entirely negated if the "two parts" end up on separate lines because an ordinary, breaking space is used, so your only real argument seems to be one of personal preference since this page indicates that the spaced version is not necessarily the official choice currently: http://www.nzta.govt.nz/traffic/current-conditions/highway-info/index.html -- Alice 06:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
The unspaced version is undoubtedly easier for the editors, and considerable less off-putting to someone who wants to make a quick change. So, if we can also demonstrate a common usage in that form, I think that makes a convincing case. I think that has been done. --Inas (talk) 08:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, that doesn't convince me. I still think the arguments for making our guides more readable win over editorial convenience. So we still seem to have an even split, i.e. no consensus has developed yet, and the status quo (inconsistent usage, reflecting editorial whim) remains the default option. --Avenue (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm always happy with a consensus that arrives at editorial whim. --Inas (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, I've struck-thru my premature consensus notice above.
Other things being equal, if there were to be convincing evidence that one form rather than the other (as displayed on a screen when reading NZ articles or printing them out) was clearer for the reader or more readable, would that change your opinion, please? -- Alice 00:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Cities or Towns or Settlements?[edit]

This edit started me wondering if we should agree on an exception for New Zealand as a whole?

We really don't have that many cities in the New Zealand meaning of the word. Yes, Colinsville, Kentucky, altitude 964 ft, population 236 may be called a "City" in US English but that would sound a bit strange in most Commonwealth varieties of English.

Should we continue to use "Cities" as the heading for not more than 9 settlements in each of our Regions and Sub-regions (bearing in mind that out of the 13 North Island and {soon to be} 7 South Island regions, most regions do not even contain one real city, never mind a list) ? -- Alice 09:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there needs to be an exception here. The Cities section of the Region template says that if there are no cities then it's OK to call the section Towns, Villages or whatever is appropriate. If there is a range of sizes then the section should be left as Cities. For the edit you mentioned, Towns seems appropriate. At the North Island or South Island level, I wouldn't think Towns is appropriate. For the regions in between, I don't see why we can't follow the existing guidelines. -Shaundd (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
That seems like a good solution in conformance with our existing policies. Surprisingly, it's the first time I've read Region#Cities and the current relevant policy (in case this crops up again) is: Per Wikivoyage:One-liner listings, cities and towns should be listed in alphabetical order. If the region corresponds to a political entity (such as a state or a province), always list its capital city first.
Lastly, if calling the settlements in this region "cities" is a real stretch -- say, for remote or rural areas with only towns and/or villages -- it's OK to rename this section 'Towns' or 'Villages' or 'Settlements' or whatever. But if there are lots of different kinds and sizes of settlements, just leave it as "Cities". -- Alice 18:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Few restaurants outside the larger cities[edit]

"Outside of the larger cities, restaurants can be hard to come by". What is meant by "larger cities"? Bigger than 80,000 population or what? Nurg (talk) 03:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I think any city in New Zealand is likely to have a choice of restaurants, and any larger town, so the population cut-off would be more like 10,000 or even 5,000. Small towns are more problematic. I found not a single place offering a sit-down meal one evening in central Kaikohe a few years ago, not even a pub. Kaikohe is just over 4,000 people, but as it is the centre for the Far North District Council I expected more. The slightly larger and more tourist-oriented towns of Kaitaia and Kerikeri do have a choice of restaurants.-Muscles (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

[edit]

Hez, I'd like to change the banner to the one French have cause it's sharper. Jjtkk (talk) 06:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The French banner is much better. James Atalk 06:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The French one is better, but I'm not that keen on either of the photos of snow-capped mountains in June and July, which are among the months when the least number of visitors go to NZ. Nurg (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Do you have another idea? There's a choice of panoramas here. Jjtkk (talk) 10:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I would like to see the French banner used on this page too. I don't think the snow-capped mountains are a big deal; it's not an unreasonable amount of snow for more of the year than June / July and even in the middle of summer there are plenty of white-capped mountains in NZ. For example this. was taken in summer. --tiimta (hello) 14:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Obviously the choice of a banner has a huge subjective element. That said, we may be able to agree that
a) it should show New Zealand in a fair, but positive light
b) the image should work reasonably well with small screens on laptops and notebooks as well as larger desktop machines. This means that if the lower half of the image is obscure by the ToC panel,and the left third obscured by the Pagename (of "New Zealand", plus or minus the NZ flag) it should still work. For the same reasons it's best if the lower half is darker and the upper half lighter
Subjectively and of the three referenced so far, I prefer Tiimta's --W. Franke-mailtalk 18:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

"Understand" section[edit]

Politics section provides a little too much detail regarding Politics which is better described in Wikipedia. This should be shortened in line with Wikivoyage:Goals_and_non-goals Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a difficult one. I think the current 2 paragraphs are not overly long. but I understand that they may act as an incentive to expansion over time (like list of cities and towns). Do you prefer to remove the section entirely again? I'd bow to anyone who has strong feelings either way. --118.93.67.66 08:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Andrew. Also the "Sport" subsection is too detailed. Being an encyclopedia is non-goal #11. As a traveller I come to WV for travel-related info. For general background info that I may be interested in, but is not travel-related, I expect to look elsewhere. As a traveller it annoys me when I find long "Understand" sections with material of no relevance to me as a traveller. The same goes for "Learn" sections with info for students, not travellers. Nurg (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
In theory, you're right, Nurg. The difficulty is that we Kiwis tend to take our sport rather seriously and if we chop it down we'll have to keep coming back to weed it again and, in that process, perhaps seem quite unwelcoming to new Kiwi editors who start small with something they understand.
As an example, both my wife and eldest daughter want me to be their meatpuppet and add a bit about young women enjoying playing touch rugby. Apart from some pacific islands, we haven't seen such an involvement by young women in other countries we've visited. (I was going to tell them to make their own edits - but because of all the allegations continually buzzing around this place, I've forbidden all my family from using my mobile device to edit!) --118.93.67.66 23:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Regions / cities / other destinations - Part II[edit]

(A recent bold edit archived past discussions to an archive entitled "Talk:New Zealand/Archive 2003-2012". Unfortunately it included this part, where the discussion was ongoing and only started in Sep 2013:)

This edit may have resurrected the topic of the current peculiarly lop-sided and unbalanced division into 5 "Regions" named North Island (with a population of more than 3 million, South Island (one million odd), Stewart Island (400+), Chatham Islands (600+) and Subantarctic Islands (zero permanent residents and not exactly an easy or mass tourism destination).

Although the 7±2 rule.' has been entirely discredited by subsequent psychological research, if we wish to continue to "group things into sets of 5-9 objects", I would propose that we divide into these more natural six divisions:

6[edit]

Alternatively, and if the infamous 7±2 rule is thought no longer to trump the traveller's stance, I would suggest a simpler division of just three:

3[edit]

If we're serious that the print version really does matter, this would mean the printed map(s) would be more manageable and relevant to most visitor travel patterns.

with the Cook Islands, Niue and Tokelau dealt with in a similar way to the "USA fiddly bits" by using one or two footer paragraphs such as: "The realm of New Zealand also includes the Cook Islands, Niue and Tokelau. Although these share the same monarch as head of state and their citizens are issued New Zealand passports, because they are self governing with differing immigration régimes and with very different climates and cultures, they are dealt with in separate articles."

Incidentally, our USA article does demonstrate a precedent for breaching the holy writ of 7±2 : it has 7 + 6 = 13 regions. --W. Frankemailtalk 15:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Frank. I don't agree.
  • I think Cook Islands, Niue and Tokelau should remain regions of Polynesia, not of New Zealand. They are part of the Realm of New Zealand, but are not generally thought of as part of geographical NZ proper. It is fine to mention them in New Zealand, as you've done, but I don't think they should be part of the region structure.
  • The title of the Ross article is Ross Sea, not Ross Dependency. I think Ross Sea should remain a region of Antarctica, not of New Zealand, for the same reason as the Polynesian islands.
  • Making Chatham Islands a region of the South Island makes no sense to me at all. They are closer to the North Island than to the South Island, although they are are the same latitude as the South Island. But they are so far from any other land, it is quite reasonable to treat them separately from the two main islands.
  • Making Stewart Island a region of the South Island is not quite such a stretch, but while NZ's third biggest island is much smaller than the largest two, I think it's good to have it separate from the South Island.
  • There is no article for Kermadec Islands yet (tourists can't land there), but if one is created one day I would add it as an additional region of NZ, separate from the North Island.
So, I'm in favour of keeping the present 5 regions as they are, expanding it to 6 regions when Kermadec Islands is written. Geographically, the NZ islands are "peculiarly lop-sided and unbalanced" and it is natural for our division to reflect that. Nurg (talk) 02:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I also think we currently have a "peculiarly lop-sided and unbalanced division".
I favour Nurg's rationale with regard to the Cook Islands, Niue and Tokelau being best dealt with as regions (countries?) of Polynesia, not of New Zealand. I also favour Nurg's rationale with regard to Ross Sea / Ross Dependency and it/they should remain a region of Antarctica, not of New Zealand.
Putting the needs of the traveller first, the most weighty argument is that the printed map(s) would be more manageable and this has more relevancy to most visitor travel patterns if there was a simple division into North and South Islands. ie the "3" solution, but without the new Polar New Zealand article including the Ross Dependency and the various sub-antarctic islands of Auckland, Bounty, Campbell, Antipodes and the Snares that are extremely rarely visited other than by research scientists.
I agree with Nurg, that making Stewart Island a region of the South Island is not a stretch and it might even be made part of our current Southland region.
Making the Chatham Islands a region of the South Island makes perfect sense to me. Many of their transport links, marine and air, are with the South Island, and the children of the less than 700 population attend secondary schools there.
Both Stewart Island and the Chatham Islands share the same area code (03) as the South Island.
I agree with Frank, that the removed parts should be dealt with by using one or two footer paragraphs such as: "The realm of New Zealand also includes the Antarctic territories of the Ross Dependency, the various sub-Antarctic islands of Auckland, Bounty, Campbell, Antipodes and the Snares together with the tropical Cook Islands, Niue and Tokelau. Although the latter share the same monarch as head of state and their citizens are issued New Zealand passports, because they are self governing with differing immigration régimes and all have very different climates and cultures, they are dealt with in separate articles." --118.93nzp (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
What do you mean about the printed map(s)? Nurg (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Mmmm, now you mention it I don't know exactly he was on about! I've emailed him for an explanation but there's no reply as yet. I assumed at the time I read his comments that he would have had a point, but now I'm buggered if I can see the relevance of printed maps to how we divide up NZ. Sorry!
Why didn't you ask Frank what he meant two months ago when he wrote that? --118.93nzp (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I didn't ask Frank because it wasn't his main point and I addressed his main points. But for you, it is "the most weighty argument" when putting the needs of the traveller first, even though, as it turns out, you don't know what you mean! Nurg (talk) 04:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Fair points both.
It's a bit embarrassing to admit it, but because I've always found him and Peter Southwood to be unfailingly accurate in the past, I whacked that in without checking. I've struck it through now until I can find out exactly what he meant by that. Trying desperately to rescue the situation, it just goes to show what I have consistently sermonised about: assess the edit not the person who made it!
I suppose he could have meant that the South Island printed map would be a bit more manageable if it showed the connection from Bluff to Stewart Island but I have to admit I'm just floundering and guessing now... --118.93nzp (talk) 04:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Suspicious edit?[edit]

This edit removed and changed a lot of content, whilst not leaving a comment as to why. The user was anonymous. Should it be undone? Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a complicated edit with some minor grammar errors and some facts need to be nuanced slightly differently, but my first reaction is that it's a bona fide attempt to assist the traveller. I'll look at it in depth in the morning. --118.93nzp (talk) 10:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Great. I don't have sufficient local knowledge to know which is the better edit. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
If I'm still allowed to edit when I finish my shift, I'll attempt to combine the accurate and germane from both. If not, then because this project is a wiki, somebody else may be able to improve it. Either way, I wish this project the best for the future. --118.93nzp (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Opinions not allowed?!?[edit]

This edit removed this text: While Maori Television receives large government subsidies, it still displays some advertising. If the intrusive advertising drives you crazy, then the Al Jazeera international news and current affairs station is widely available on DTT 24/7. with edit comment of "Undo revision 2512653 by 61.29.8.41 (talk) -- "intrusive" is opinionated".

There are some important differences between our travel guide and an encyclopaedia such as Wikipedia. WP requires all opinions to be authoritative (ie usually published in reputable sources) and referenced.

Reading between the lines here, I don't think that @Lcmortensen: actually disagrees that there is an international news and current affairs station called Al Jazeera and neither that it is widely available on DTT 24/7 and neither that it does not interrupt the flow intrusively with advertising. No, I suspect his objection is to the idea that anyone should have the opinion that advertising is not an unmitigated "good thing" or, heaven forfend, that anyone could actually opine that interrupting a film or drama every few minutes can be "intrusive".

When we warn travellers that a motel is "dirty", it's typically not because we've read the results of a bacteriological survey by the local health inspector; if we go on to write that the "mattresses sag and are uncomfortable" that's typically just our opinion without reference to scientific tests. If we write in an opinionated way that travellers should try and get a room at the back away from the highway, that opinion, although unsupported by the readings of a decibel meter is allowed to remain because it is both fair and useful to the traveller.

Is there any difference with what has been removed? In my opinion, it's useful to travellers to know

(i) that there is an an international news and current affairs station called Al Jazeera available 24 hours a day throughout most of New Zealand (the only one now that BBC World on TV1 in the early hours of the morning has been replaced with US steam cleaner "infomercials") and
ii) that, almost uniquely amongst it NZ's free-to-air programming, Al Jazeera does not carry intrusive advertising.

And no, I do not work for and have not been paid by Al Jazeera but I do enjoy keeping up with world events when visiting NZ when I don't have the access to the BBC that I take for granted in Singapore. --61.29.8.41 23:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

"Intrusive" compared to what? The statement is subjective - it may be intrusive to someone who watches non-commercial television all the time, but from an American point of view it would be much more pleasurable to watch with less advertising.
Yes, there is an international news and current affairs station called Al Jazeera and it is available on Freeview HD, but it is not unique to New Zealand. It is also available free-to-air in many other countries worldwide.Lcmortensen (talk) 07:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that you have still fully understood that, to write an effective and entertaining travel guide, we have to use our subjective judgements and voice our fair opinions. Those are just two of the ways we differ from WP.
Another important difference is that, here at Wikivoyage, the print version matters. Yes, we strive to be comprehensive but we continually walk a tightrope (not helped by our overly restrictive policy that currently forbids in-line linking to Wikipedia for non-travel topics) between coverage and avoiding guides becoming too bloated to reasonably print out and put in a back pocket. It's always a tough judgement as to whether it's useful for travellers to know that the Arahura has 300 lane metres available, the Aratere 625 lane metres, and Kaitaki, 1780 lane metres, but I'd encourage you to always focus on more typical traveller's needs rather than those logistic planners needing to know whether their 500m long motorcade of vehicles can be accommodated or not.
Getting back to your point about our American visitors being delighted about less advertising in Godzone, that's but one perspective. Australians and British visitors, used to having several high quality channels with zero advertising from the ABC and BBC respectively, will be appalled by the intrusiveness and length of NZ TV ads - not to mention, the banality and relentlessly low-brow programming and the lack of documentaries and news analysis. That's why it's important to mention the existence of both Aljazeera and, for the rapidly increasing number of Chinese visitors, CTV8. --118.93nzp (talk) 01:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Do you have any figures for how many millions of dollars are returned to the NZ government annually (or expended on Māori Television) so that "New Zealand's small television audience and high overhead costs means it cannot afford the luxury in offering commercial-free television like in Britain and Australia" ? --118.93nzp (talk) 03:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

NZ Broadband doesn't suck![edit]

So I just had a fiddle with the Internet section of the article. Previously it was written with a very negative tone, as if trying to convince readers that we have 3rd world internet - which is utterly untrue! I feel it's a lot more positive now, and I'm just posting this to head off any accusations of fanboyism: http://www.geekzone.co.nz/sbiddle/8433 Ripdog2121 (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Be fair and plunge forward. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
This part of our article previously said (before removal): "This is compounded by the fact New Zealand is an island nation and there are only two cables out of the country, with a combined capacity of 4,000,000 Mbps (that's just under 900 kbps per person!)"
Is that statement now untrue? --118.93nzp (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
It is also assuming that every single person is using 900kbps at any given time. Not untrue, but irrelevant at best and misleading at worst. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

November 2016 earthquake[edit]

I disagree with the complete removal of all earthquake information here. A {{warningbox}} is a bit excessive if lives aren't currently in danger, but the road to Kaikoura being out does impede travel and therefore merits at least a mention (presumably, in "get around"). K7L (talk) 15:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that we need to have a prominent box near the top of the article - maybe a caution, not a warning. Otherwise the reader will assume that we haven't updated the article. (I have just looked at newzealand.com and it didn't mention the quake, which means that I would not rely on their info being current.) It can have a positive spin a - 7.8 earthquake which only resulted in two fatalities says a lot about how well the country is prepared.
Kaikoura should have a warning box until road access is open to all, and then a caution until SH1 is fully open (likely to take months). Wellington and probably some other places should have cautions, as there has been some damage and travellers may find places closed. AlasdairW (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually I was disturbed about User:Nurg's edit comment : " Most of NZ is open & the tourism industry is concerned that people will be put off travelling to regions that are open, or to the country at all " - This does come across as actively trying to prevent the traveler from making an informed decision about travel to NZ, which I would like to believe wasn't the actual intent.
I recommend reinstating the warning, with an emphasis that the impact is very localised in specific areas. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I have added it back as a cautionbox, but changing the last sentence, to make it clear that it is mostly business as usual. AlasdairW (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually reading the content of the warning, it seems to only impact actual travel between Wellington and Christchurch, and not a safety issue. Would it not be more appropriate placed in the 'Get Around' section? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I think that it should stay at the top of the page for a couple of weeks, as it impacts places to see, sleep etc. I understand that a few sights in Wellington are shut, but at the moment it is not clear which have just closed for a couple of days to tidy up, and which are shut for months. AlasdairW (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Do we need two boxes? The first box already explains that there had been an earthquake, so the second box (in "get around") doesn't need to re-explain everything. Just list what roads are closed or diverted, as the other box already has the info about the disaster itself. K7L (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I expect that there will be difficulties with getting around until SH1 and the railway reopens. There are no estimates yet of when that will be (other than "months"). I would expect to have the second box there for a large part of 2017, but the first one would be removed in 2-4 weeks depending on updates. AlasdairW (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Apologies if I over-reacted in removing the warning box completely. I had just come from reading this news article talking about "a risk overseas markets will get the wrong idea about the size of the area affected", and "much of New Zealand is unaffected", and "after the Christchurch earthquakes, even regions that hadn't been directly impacted suffered a significant drop-off in visitors". I was happy with the warning on the Kaikoura article but worried we might contribute to the fears expressed in the news article with a warning on the NZ article. I am happy with the "notes" now on the NZ, Marlborough and Wellington articles, and the warning on Kaikoura. I think they are proportionate and fair.
While I'm here, as someone with a long NZ watchlist, I want to thank everyone who contributes to NZ articles. I particularly notice User:Lcmortensen, an assiduous NZ encyclopedist, who joined us (I think) from Wikipedia on the day we officially started on Wikimedia. He doesn't post on Talk pages much but beavers away consistently. Also User:AlasdairW, for whom NZ couldn't be further from his domicile. In addition to his many contributions to text, he is especially valued for adding banners, an area I have no expertise in. And everyone else too, thanks. Nurg (talk) 09:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that the warning at the top of the article might be removed now - but the the Get Around one needs to stay, probably for most of 2017. In the last ten days, I have been in Wellington, Nelson and then Christchurch (via the Tranzalpine). The only disruption I noticed was in Wellington, but this was minor (<5% of stuff was closed and I had to make a one block diversion to avoid an unsafe building). Those travelling direct from Picton to Christchurch were more impacted, due to the rail / SH1 closures. AlasdairW (talk) 09:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Replace Hawke's Bay in Other Destinations?[edit]

While adding the map markers for cities and other destinations, it seemed to me that we have Napier in cities and Hawke's Bay in Other Destinations, with basically the same blurbs. Should we keep Napier and replace Hawke's Bay with another destination? If we did replace Hawke's Bay, which destination should replace it? I was thinking Marlborough or Kaikoura would be a suitable replacement. Lcmortensen (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Maps[edit]

I have removed the dynamic map from this article. Wikivoyage policy is that particularly above the city level, when there's a static map, a dynamic map is not used. This has been discussed before. If anyone wants to argue the point again, try the Travellers' pub. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ikan Kekek, but the different cities are not highlighted on the static map but were on the dynamic one. So useful information for travellers has been deleted now.--Renek78 (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd suggest for the static map to be edited, not replaced. It's standard for countries to use static maps. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I realized with those static maps, that it takes quite some effort to alter them. Thus they are rarely updated. In the long run the dynamic maps are the way to go in my opinion. But that's a topic for the Travellers' pub as you already said. Nonetheless I would like to paste the alternative map here. Who knows what happens in the future. It is quite a bit of work to find the right Wikidata items. Would be a pity, if someone else has to repeat this work in a few months/years...--Renek78 (talk) 10:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

There are some very good static mapmakers. All they need is information on which cities and other destinations to highlight. If he were spending more time here, I'd ping User:Saqib, but really, just posting a message at the pub for a slight amount of help on the static map is all that's needed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek:, I am happy to help. Just let me know what exactly needs to be done. --Saqib (talk) 11:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Your move, Renek78. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello Saqib, I just mentioned, that the dynamic map had markers for the 9 major cities in them (from 1 Wellington to 9 Rotorua). I'm not sure whether it makes sense to add those numbers 1-9 to the static map. Maybe not.
I think the point would be to highlight the names of the cities in the list of 9 and similarly featured other destinations. Names are better than numbers, anyway. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I can see 9 major cities already listed in the static map but there are few more cities or town listed. I assume those Should those go? Also I am going to add the "other destination" points in the map. Anything else? --Saqib (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
See the map please. --Saqib (talk) 14:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't recommend deleting information (other towns); instead, I would support bolding the names of the 9 listed cities. Where can we see the revised map? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
commons:File:NZ regions.png. --Saqib (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I can see all the "Cities" and "Other destinations" on the map. Had there been any other cities in the map before? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, there were few more locations which I have removed. [5] --Saqib (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I think it would be great to leave those and simply bold the names of the featured cities. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Converting units[edit]

My edit using the "kmh" template" was reverted with the edit summary "overconversion" may I ask what the consensus on this is? I thought that template was introduced to be used, but if consensus says something else, so be it... Hobbitschuster (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

It's hard to say what "overconversion" means but I think it means having to see the both kmh and mph speeds five times in the one paragraph. Not sure if I agree with that though. All five speeds are different so why make readers do the maths in their head if we can provide them with that information? The policy at WV:Conv doesn't really give specific guidance on this point. Gizza (roam) 20:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Those Luddites who insist on using old-timer measures like "hundredweights" and "miles" should just get over it join the modern world. I don't see why we should cater to their bizarre clinging to the ancient world.
<Sigh>. But that's not what our policy says. I think a reasonable approach here would be to convert the first two, 50 km/h and 100 km/h, and leave the others to the reader's imagination. 40, 90, and 110 km/h are all close enough to those speeds that they will get the main point. If they are driving in NZ, they will have to learn these anyway. Ground Zero (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Maybe the template could/should be changed into a hover-over function? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I would be quite content to make metric our default measurement system and not bother with conversions except in order to provide metric "translations" of imperial measures on UK and U.S.-related articles. However, if we are to maintain the policy that conversions are useful, then they should be implemented fully and without exception, rather than half-heartedly. The only get-out clause should be where the same measurement is listed more than once in the space of a few paragraphs. I would also like to see a hover-over function, if possible. On the other hand, I've noticed that function doesn't work on mobile internet (like many other aspect of our crap mobile version), so maybe not yet. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Everyone knows what a kilometer is, speed limits on New Zealand roads are measured in kilometers per hour only, and in fact it's unlikely that any car driving on a New Zealand road even has a speedometer that registers anything other than km/h. So I don't see any reason to convert here. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Should there be a link to Metric and Imperial equivalents somewhere? Theoretically knowing what a km is does not give the feeling in the same way as recognizing familiar speeds. Somehow I doubt most readers do the conversion themselves as they read. Where would American users found the link most easily? New Zealand is probably not the most important destination for US folks, so some central place could do, but I think there is none. The country fact box? --LPfi (talk) 07:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Any time I want to do a conversion, I just type "convert x kilometers to miles" in a search engine, and voila! No need to spend much time worrying about this, IMO. If some Americans can't figure out what a km per hour is, how do you think they'll handle driving on the left side? Better not drive while in New Zealand, then. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
The article has 19 uses of "km" including "sq km" and 4 conversions into miles / square miles. I think that is about right - a few conversions remind readers of the conversion factor. It would be fine to add a conversion for one of the speeds, but not all of them. I doubt any travellers will be driving cars with mph speedometers, as you don't bring your own car to New Zealand, and I doubt a traveller will be driving a car from before 1976. AlasdairW (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
The conversion of square (whatever) differs from the conversion of not-square units. One square mile is not roughly equal to 1.6 square kilometers... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Our measurement policy asks us to "try to provide conversions for measurements" and "If the preferred units are metric, try to provide U.S. Standard measurements in parentheses." Just saying. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I think the conversions are useful for US folks. Some are in the metric world for the first time. And typing a conversion into a search box requires some effort, like doing the ×1.6 in the head. We have to balance that with too many parenthesis and figures making the text less fluent. But we do have the quite good article on conversions, and I do not know how our readers find it. Or, rather, I suspect few find it. --LPfi (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)