Talk:New Zealand/Archive 2003-2012

Lemon shrimp, coconut shrimp, pineapple shrimp...
So, the list under "Do" looks like it took a while to make. But I don't know if we need to list every single adventure sport possible within the boundaries of New Zealand, especially without any kind of context. Wouldn't it be better to just list a few, with links to the location articles where you can do these things?

It also reminds me that there's not really a "Do" section in the country article template. It might be nice to have See and Do like we do for huge cities -- that is, these are some specific things you shouldn't miss on a trip to this country. Not everything, of course, just the highlights. --(WT-en) Evan 11:07, 9 Dec 2003 (PST)

What about breaking up the whole list and just saying "Adventure sports"? Then the specific activities can show up on the destination city/region pages. If we are going to have a "Do" section at the country level, that's probably the level we'd want. But I'd like to suggest (and we can take this to the country template talk) avoiding lists on the country pages, except for lists of destinations. Instead, the "must dos" for a country can be covered in the intro paragraph or in other text. I just think lists are a good indication that it's getting to detailed... (WT-en) Majnoona


 * What I'm thinking for a "See" and "Do" at the country or region level would be pretty much the same as at the huge city level (see Project:huge city article template). It'd be a list of things that, if you had 5 or 7 things to recommend in the country, these would be the ones. Something like this:

Do
There are lots of things to do in New Zealand; here are some don't-miss highlights.


 * The Southern Alps have world-class skiing.
 * Catch a rugby match by the All-Blacks in Wellington.
 * See the vampire snow parrots known as kea attack sheep in the Southern Alps.
 * Swim with dolphins and seals in Dunedin.

Just some quick highlights, with pointers to the destination pages that have more detailed information. --(WT-en) Evan 23:56, 9 Dec 2003 (PST)

has / have -- any linguists in the audience?
Re: A small number of Maori words has/have been received into New Zealand English.

I'm not at all sure that has is correct: it's not the number that has been received, but the words (plural -> have). But I'm not an expert. Where are the linguists here? (WT-en) DhDh 05:45, 10 Jan 2004 (EST)


 * Make it "A few Maori words" then. -(WT-en) phma 08:02, 10 Jan 2004 (EST)


 * I am not a linguist but I am pretty sure have is correct, either way. --(WT-en) Nils 23:11 Jan 10th 2004 (CET)


 * I was wrong. The phrase "number of" sometimes takes a singular verb and sometimes plural. In this case it is plural. It's all to do with "indefinite qualifiers". So much to learn. (WT-en) Nurg 17:37, 10 Jan 2004 (EST)

Are New Zealand Drivers Polite?? !!!
I have no frame of reference for how polite New Zealand drivers are, since I have only driven in New Zealand. In my opinion, the assertion that "... there is a great deal of politeness on the roads too. ... " is not truly representative of the truth. There are some polite drivers and some lunatic drivers on New Zealand roads. A number of people tell me that New Zealand drivers are far worse than drivers in the USA, UK or Europe. Any other thoughts? - (WT-en) Huttite 07:44, 5 Oct 2004 (EDT)
 * Having driven all over Southern Africa, NZ drivers are heaps more polite --(WT-en) Nzpcmad 15:18, 5 Oct 2004 (EDT)


 * Those people are probably right because tourists always say NZ drivers are the worst they have seen in their travel


 * Yes. I moved to NZ from Scotland, and NZ drivers are terrible!


 * I dont think they arent polite, however they are impatient. Road rage is rare, bad drivers are not! :)


 * Yep I can confirm NZ drivers are bad compared to other countries I have lived in. I agree they are impatient and they don't seem to know their own rules which they are so keen for us foreigners to learn in our first 12 months ;o)


 * The concept of letting someone cut in to a busy road (from a side road, etc) is virtually unknown in New Zealand, and is usually met with looks of bewilderment from the driver you're trying to help. NZ drivers also like to cut corners, particularly at intersections - don't presume you can pull right up to a Stop or Give Way sign unless you're sure no-one is making a right turn in front of you from the cross street.


 * The main reason State Highway 2 (just south of Auckland's Bombay Hills) is a high crash area is that Aucklanders coming off the motorway are unused to typical state highways.- —The preceding comment was added by Fanx (talk • contribs)


 * In my experience, drivers are courteous. I very rarely have to wait more than a few seconds before someone on a congested major road stops to let me in, and I do the same for others (perhaps not quite as often as I should).-Muscles (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Hierachy of Regions and Cities
How should the New Zealand regions and cites be listed? I think the list is a bit overwhelming.

If no one objects I would propose:
 * Having two Island regions, mentioning all the places in the region list.
 * In the Cities list mention the main metropolitan population centres of Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch as they have international airports that serve more than one airline, possibly with Dunedin.
 * Mention Rotorua, Queenstown, Hamilton and Palmerston North in the Other destinations.
 * Under Get around mention Picton as an internal port of entry into the south island.
 * List and link to other places under See.

Is that too radical? -- (WT-en) Huttite 22:36, 7 Jan 2005 (EST)


 * It sounds OK to me. I think Other destinations is really for things that aren't cities though: national parks, islands etc. So I would still have Rotorua, Queenstown, Hamilton and Palmerston North under cities, perhaps something like this: "The main metropolitan centers in New Zealand are [list of Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin. [New para]. Other popular cities in New Zealand include: [list of Rotorua, Queenstown, Hamilton and Palmerston North." (WT-en) Hypatia 04:48, 8 Jan 2005 (EST)


 * The heading Cities is the thing that bugs me a bit. I want to avoid having an argument over whether a particular centre should be included under city or not. To me, New Zealand has Metropolitan areas, such as Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch (and probably Dunedin counts too), that are multi-city con-urbations and then it has separate stand alone provincial towns, (some of which are cities, and others that are not). Some of the non-cities, such as Gisborne, Oamaru and Greymouth should be given alongside their regions, so that there is (at least) one city per region on the main page. Cities could be split into subsections of Metopolitan areas and Provincial towns. -- (WT-en) Huttite

-- Would it be worth having a short discription of each city and region?

Doesn't the current format allow for easy linking to specific pages for the various destinations as the relevant entries are created? Also with regard the transit locations, surely that information is related to the "Get In" and "Get around" sections.

Politics and the 'understand' section
Hello, I'm new here - when I read the 'understand' section on this site I felt that I had to create an account and make a couple of changes. I wanted to make the description of Maori land claims a bit more balanced, as it seems that someone with one particular opinion had written quite a lot. Being a travel website, the main prioroty is surely to tell readers about what New Zealand is really like, no? In this case the reality is that there are a range of opinions about the treaty settlement process and that it's really a very complicated and emotional issue for most New Zealanders (for those who don't know, the issue is addressed politically, and on the whole Maori and European NZers are on good terms). The section is a history/background on New Zealand, and a long 'rant' about one particular opinion on one particular issue really didn't fit there. Cheers, Catherine.


 * Plunge forward. See Project:Neutral point of view and Project:Tone for examples of how potentially controversial content is handled. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:20, 4 Nov 2005 (EST)


 * Thanks for taking on this sticky subject! It's the difficult stuff that I think really benefits from having a number of contributors. (WT-en) Majnoona 22:59, 4 Nov 2005 (EST)


 * Absolutely - thanks a ton. I'm a great fan of the country. I think I vaguely remember reading the understand section before you edited and thinking - boy that's nasty, but I didn't have the knowledge to really sort it out.  It'd be fantastic if you continued to contribute elsewhere - your edits look great!  -- (WT-en) Ilkirk 23:48, 5 Nov 2005 (EST)

The general tone of this article presents New Zealanders as easily offended. There are at least 3 references to NZers being offended. NZers are understanding of and generally friendly toward people from other cultures, and are unlikely to be offended by something spoken by someone who is obviously a foreigner.

And I wouldn't hesitate to talk about European/Maori relations either. Just be prepared for an interesting debate!

Bevan, 15 July 2006.


 * If you think the article should be changed, you can plunge forward and fix it! That's how wikis work! - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 09:37, 16 July 2006 (EDT)

Tour operators in NZ
Hi, I read the articles about NZ but the section about tour operators is rather small. I'm looking for tour operators like Wayward or Adventure tours in Australia. Does somebody know links or has recommendation? Thanks, (WT-en) Jc8136 10:44, 10 August 2006 (EDT)

New Zealand
Anyone object to the deletion of this section and all its contents?


 * I do. What's wrong with listing a few tour operators who provide tours of New Zealand?  There are travelers who like taking tours of places, and as long as these operators actually operate tours I don't see why they shouldn't be included.  If the list gets out of hand then it will need to be trimmed, but having a handful of tour operators seems like a way to make the guide more useful.  Project:External links doesn't say that any external link is inappropriate, only that non-primary links are inappropriate.  A business whose job is providing tours of New Zealand doesn't obviously violate that policy as far as I can see. -- (WT-en) Ryan 16:20, 22 September 2006 (EDT)


 * As you doubtless noticed, I asked the same thing on a selection of pages that have ==Tour operators== sections, as several pages have listings for the same "operator", often every listing in the section reads like a commercial, some are not even "local", and frequently it's nothing more than a list of websites - not unlike Internet booking services, apartment rentals etc.
 * Do you think it would be a good idea to convert this one to ==Local tour operators== ? ~ 203.144.143.2 22:46, 22 September 2006 (EDT)


 * I blanked the section to paste it here before seeing this discussion. I restored it for the time being, but I am strongly against listing most of these because they are basically travel agencies providing complete vacation packages including all accomodations and transport around the country, fixed iteneraries, etc. The article templates don't contain such a category, and I believe there is a reason for that-- if using one of these listings, why would you need the Wikivoyage article at all? I believe recent consensus regarding listings of tour agencies has it that they are not to be listed unless A) the destination would be dangerous or impossible to do without a tour guide (North Korea, Amazon, etc.), or B) the tour itself is unique and consensus forms to make an exception and list it (i.e. London Walks). (WT-en) Texugo 03:13, 11 September 2007 (EDT)


 * As "...the destination would be dangerous or impossible to do without a tour guide (North Korea, Amazon, etc.), [or] the tour itself is unique and consensus forms to make an exception and list it..." sounds very reasonable indeed, and nothing listed appears to come anywhere close to qualifying, and the entire section is little more than a bunch of blatant advertisements, I've deleted it. ~ 203.144.143.7 15:31, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Ordering
I've rearranged the order of other places to see, by erasing Dunedin from the region list (As it is in Otago, and is a city) and have also rearranged the other places of interest according to geography (North to South) as the list did not seem to make sense before. Unsigned 202.175.135.20 00:06, 5 November 2006

Other destinations

 * Unfortunately, someone else at some time, changed "Other destinations" to alphabetical order.
 * I'll not change the current alphabetical order without seeing if there is an opposing point of view and then waiting for a consensus to emerge. --W. Franke-mailtalk 10:08, 30 September 2012 (CEST)


 * Even more unfortunately, I've now had to undo this spasm undo (from someone who should know better)

http://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=New_Zealand&diff=1892956&oldid=1892538
 * If anyone has any thoughts about an order that would be most helpful to the traveller, please explain your thinking here first.--W. Franke-mailtalk 18:51, 1 October 2012 (CEST)


 * The order is alphabetical for all country pages. See the Country article template. --Globe-trotter (talk) 11:57, 2 October 2012 (CEST)


 * I think you may have misread that, Sir.
 * If you go to the template you reference above (look at the version before you edited it today to fit your PoV) you will not read any mandate to compulsorily alphabetise anything other than cities. This was our long standing policy before you unilaterally changed it without discussion (again):

"Sometimes a country has destinations that aren't really cities; for example, large national parks like the Grand Canyon, or archaeological sites like Borobudur. These should usually be listed on the region page for the region they're in, but for especially prominent ones you can also list them separately here, with descriptions, if they exist. Otherwise, leave out this section."


 * Park 1 - incredible mountainous park, great hiking
 * Park 2 - great rock formations and wildlife viewing
 * Ruins 1 - amazing ruins of an ancient civilization


 * &rarr; Article templates/Sections -- which has been present since early 2009. -- D. Guillaume (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2012 (CEST)


 * Then I owe Globe-trotter an unreserved apology and this procrustian template needs changing to make clear that our primary goal is to put the needs of the traveller as numero uno! --W. Franke-mailtalk 18:07, 2 October 2012 (CEST)

Now, moving on, I also read here:

"One-liner listings are the default for Cities, Other destinations, and Get out sections. They are also used in other sections, as appropriate. Regions and Districts sections typically use a similar format unless the  template is being used.

One-liner listings are primarily for navigation in the "Regions," "Cities," and "Other destinations" sections; they should get allow the reader to quickly identify and get to the specific travel guide they want to read. They should not try to provide detailed descriptions or long lists of attractions.

One-liner listings should use the following format:


 * Alphabetic — preferred, if appropriate and there's no reason not to
 * Bold for the caption — optional if it's a link; if mixed, consistency preferred
 * But not bold — for footnote-style links
 * Capitalise — first word of caption, but not description (except proper nouns, etc)
 * Description — a concise (preferably one phrase) description of the main draws a destination has for a traveller
 * No dots — these are concise descriptions, not full sentences

Alphabetic order should be used whenever there's no more appropriate logical order (eg price, distance, north-south, day of the week, etc). Where a non-alphabetic order is used, it should be explained if necessary."


 * With just 9 places, the eye tends to scan them all. We're not proposing an itinerary.  --Inas (talk) 03:14, 3 October 2012 (CEST)

General structural issues
Would anyone object to the removal or relocation of the second introductory paragraph? It does not actually describe New Zealand, but could be useful in a 'referals' section, though even this seems a little unnecessary.

FlyerTalk guide
I just came across this huge post from the FlyerTalk forums]. Tons of good information on NZ overall as well as specific areas and cities. An excellent source for information to integrate into the NZ articles here. 12.168.77.2 10:56, 4 December 2006 (EST)

Regions / cities / other destinations
Hey there! Can someone familiar with NZ reduce the Cities and Other destinations lists to no more than 9 each?

Also, that's a might big list in the Region section... how should NZ be divided? Just into north and south island? – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 20:38, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
 * The Regions section included all the sub-regions from North and South; the current list is much more reasonable. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 21:32, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Comments by Gaimhreadhan moved in from User talk:(WT-en) Cacahuate

I have no wish to appear combative but there is no kind or diplomatic way to say this:

The reversions by yourself (of my reversions of Todd VerBeek's reversions) are simply semantically wrong. I have had the pleasure of driving through all 50 US States and travelling extensively in NZ's 3 main islands and I, along with most New Zealanders and the official NZ Government Tourist Organisation would fundamentally disagree with your edits.

The two main islands are NOT regions in any normal sense of the word - no more than Hawaii is one region the Continental USA another region and Alaska another region. Regions are geographical areas like the appalachians or New England.

I have restored the article to make sense and try and give a hint to visiting Americans that they will need at least 5 weeks to do any justice to each Island. Both of you are still very welcome to visit our family's homes and then you will see clearly the errors in your NZ edits.

If you want to delete a division just for the sake of it, then delete the lists of towns since, unless you're rather peculiar or hate fresh air, towns are nothing special in NZ (except for Queenstown, Wellington and Nelson) and it is the lifestyle and countryside NOT the urban areas that are notable in Godzone.

Also, you lost my edit describing the Sub-Antarctic Islands as "Very difficult to get to unless you're on a scientific expedition or deep sea fishing vessel". If you know an easy way, then I'd be glad to know of it.

My position is that the revert tool is normally only used for vandalism since you risk denigrating and be-littling another users contributions otherwise. If you think I'm a vandal, just get a few others to tell me that and I'm out of here...

I also don't think it's good semantic linking for users to be routed through Island pages rather than be able to navigate to the Nelson or Coromandel area directly. If we're that short of server space, then delete the longer Towns listing since it's only Australians and Cook Islanders that take weekend city breaks to NZ!

Please discuss this on the article's talk page first if you really think you know better than I that NZ is such a pinprick as to have no regions! ...(WT-en) Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 11:50, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

-- original response:
 * Hey there Gaimhreadhan! Leaving's not an option, my friend, better to just shout back at the cocky Americans. However, I still think you're wrong. Nobody's saying at all that NZ is only worthy of two regions, we're simply saying that only the top level regions should be listed on the main page for the country, in the same way that not all states are listed on the USA page (though you'll notice that Hawaii and Alaska are listed as their own regions there). When we figure out regions on WT they are done from the perspective of a traveler, and often don't coincide with the governmental divisions.


 * If you have a better idea on how to divide the country up, then please suggest it, but as of right now, the division has already been done (and not by Todd or myself)... All of the subregions that you've readded are already listed verbatim within North Island and South Island, which is exactly why we removed them from the main page, as we would for any other destination. The main country article is just meant to be a glimpse of the country, touching on the major cities, attractions and listing the major regions. I know that NZ is bigger and more complex than most people believe (and yes, I know it's not a region of Australia), but from a traveler's perspective, they're pretty much (at least at the beginning stages) going to divide the country up into North Island, South Island, and then the other little islands. That's a logical first division. They can then look at the North Island article to dig deeper into what's on that island, and so on. We also would never usually list that many regions on a main article... if it had that many, we would find a way to break it down... and if none existed, then we would do something generic like North New Zealand, South New Zealand, East New Zealand and West New Zealand so that there are just 4 regions on the main page. But I think you'd probably agree that in the case of NZ that wouldn't make a lot of sense... What does make a lot of sense is North Island and South Island :)


 * As for the cities, unappealing as they may be, we always list up to 9 of the biggest ones... they may not be the highlight of the country, but a traveler is sure to visit at least a couple of them. And lastly, I didn't use the revert tool, as it doesn't allow me to leave an explanation the way I did in the edit summary... I used the "undo" button, which you and everybody also have access to. I didn't realize I had lost one of your new descriptions, that was unintentional. Anyhow, pulling back and thinking from the traveler's perspective, can you see a better way to divide the country at the top level? – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 13:33, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

--


 * Hey there Gaimhreadhan! Leaving's not an option, my friend, better to just shout back at the cocky Americans. However, I still think you're wrong. Nobody's saying at all that NZ is only worthy of two regions, we're simply saying that only the top level regions should be listed on the main page for the country, in the same way that not all states are listed on the USA page (though you'll notice that Hawaii and Alaska are listed as their own regions there). When we figure out regions on WT they are done from the perspective of a traveler, and often don't coincide with the governmental divisions.
 * Read the article before you reverted it. It was divided up from the (genuine, as opposed to the stereotypical "American with two days to see the whole country") traveller point of view - and specifically said that these did not necessarily co-incide with administrative regions ...(WT-en) Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 14:10, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
 * If you have a better idea on how to divide the country up, then please suggest it, but as of right now, the division has already been done (and not by Todd or myself)... All of the subregions that you've readded are already listed verbatim within North Island and South Island, which is exactly why we removed them from the main page, as we would for any other destination.
 * We're here to educate and inform.
 * Folks that think in your way can still go directly to the Island of their choice....(WT-en) Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 14:10, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
 * The main country article is just meant to be a glimpse of the country, touching on the major cities, attractions and listing the major regions. 
 * All that I've listed are Major regions - sorry. I really think that you're doing a real disservice to the traveller by trying to make all the countries of the world fit a one size fits all rigid template. It's gross distortions of categorising the world view of reality like this that directly led to the Iraq debacle....(WT-en) Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 14:10, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
 * I know that NZ is bigger and more complex than most people believe (and yes, I know it's not a region of Australia), but from a traveler's perspective, they're pretty much (at least at the beginning stages) going to divide the country up into North Island, South Island, and then the other little islands.
 * Then, unless they're touring by private yacht, that's a strange decision because I would be amazed if they ever visited 3 of the six island divisions that have been made...(WT-en) Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 14:10, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
 * That's a logical first division. They can then look at the North Island article to dig deeper into what's on that island, and so on.
 * Why the heck can they not just go the region article that interests them directly?...(WT-en) Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 14:10, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
 * We also would never usually list that many regions on a main article... if it had that many, we would find a way to break it down... and if none existed, then we would do something generic like North New Zealand, South New Zealand, East New Zealand and West New Zealand so that there are just 4 regions on the main page.
 * Why?
 * You think all our readers are too thick to cope with more than 4 regions?
 * But I think you'd probably agree that in the case of NZ that wouldn't make a lot of sense... What does make a lot of sense is North Island and South Island :)
 * Strongly disagree - and until you actually visit NZ you'll probably never understand why. How many regions do we divide Indonesia into? Off to look...(WT-en) Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 14:10, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
 * As for the cities, unappealing as they may be, we always list up to 9 of the biggest ones...
 * Why?
 * If they're not worth bothering with, why should we encourage travellers to waste their time and money in the wrong places???...(WT-en) Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 14:10, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
 * they may not be the highlight of the country, but a traveler is sure to visit at least a couple of them.
 * Of course they will if nobody attempts to inform them. I thought we were trying to give travellers the benefit of other's own first hand experience....(WT-en) Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ)  • 14:10, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
 * And lastly, I didn't use the revert tool, as it doesn't allow me to leave an explanation the way I did in the edit summary... I used the "undo" button, which you and everybody also have access to.
 * I only ever usually do that in cases of simple vandalism since you lose the other's editor's genuine contribution otherwise in the way that you did. People give their time freely here and we should fully consider and cogitate on each other's edits and not use the undo tool unless someone is seriously silly. ...(WT-en) Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 14:10, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

''I didn't realize I had lost one of your new descriptions, that was unintentional. Anyhow, pulling back and thinking from the traveler's perspective, can you see a better way to divide the country at the top level? – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 13:33, 28 May 2007 (EDT)''
 * I'll cogitate for 10 days. Sorry for any offence caused but I really don't think your opinion on this counts for too much since you've not visited all of NZ's three main islands as I have....(WT-en) Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 14:10, 28 May 2007 (EDT)


 * We don't do hierarchical lists in the "regions" section. I think the top-level list of regions that's on the article right now is great; each of these deserves its own article (and apparently has one). --(WT-en) Evan 14:07, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Wow, I was trying to level with you and make nice, but you seem intent on shouting. I think my explanation was really clear (although a little less so now that you've massacred it with your comments). I don't need to visit every place on Earth to be able to help divide it up. Actually, the very fact that I haven't been there gives me a more neutral perspective and the ability to see it from the point of view of someone who is about to visit it. While I don't think NZ is a "pin-prick" on the map, it's certainly small in regards to some other countries... If we're able to divide a country as large as India into 6 digestible top level regions, I'm sure we can manage NZ. We don't write 1 page guides, we have multiple sub-regions and sub-articles for most countries, and shall do the same for NZ. I've looked at Indonesia also - unfortunately someone has also done a "hierarchical list" there as well, but I'm going to remove the subregions now. And I'm gonna take them back out of NZ too. If you can gain a consensus here on the talk page to change that, be my guest. But for now, we're going to follow the same route that's working for so many other countries in our guide. – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 14:23, 28 May 2007 (EDT)


 * Gaimhreadhan, before this goes any further, please A) stop and fix yourself a cup of herb tea or whatever else helps you relax, and B) read Project:Geographical hierarchy. I think it explains a lot about where we're coming from with this, or at least what the site's guidelines call for.  The articles for the South Island and North Island were created (3.5 years ago, shortly after Wikivoyage was started) to help break down the country into more manageable chunks.  Much like we did with Hawaii, the Philippines, Japan, my home state of Michigan, Trinidad and Tobago, and just about every other entity that consists of two or more large pieces of land separated by water, we did it based on those geographical separations.  Admittedly, I've never been the NZ, but it seems reasonable to me that one might find oneself somewhere on the South Island and wonder "Where else can I go while I'm here, before I hop on the ferry back to Wellington?" That's what the South Island article is for.  And because the South Island is bigger than Tobago, it has pointers to articles for sub-regions of the island (much like Michigan's Lower Peninsula is further divided).  Now, if - as you say - the towns are a lousy way of dividing the sub-regions, then by all means propose a better one.  But putting over two dozen regions on the main page of New Zealand is simply going to overwhelm the traveler with too many options. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 14:38, 28 May 2007 (EDT)


 * Ok, a little more (I was writing same time as Todd, so sorry for overlapping ideas)... it seems to be the Project:Geographical hierarchy that you're struggling with. For (what I think are) obvious reasons, we can't list every single destination for a country onto ONE page. Which is why we have subpages. Take India for example, again. There are dozens and dozens of cities, temples, states, etc that are worth a mention. But the information has to be organized. The way a hierarchy works is that it's smallest on top, and gets larger as you work down the chain. In any hierarchy, one level only touches what's immediately below it. On any given article we only want to list what's on the next level down in the chain. For instance, on the USA article, we wouldn't list each and every city and town that is in Los Angeles County, and every other county in the country, because that would be a mighty long list. Instead, on the Country article, we list the next level of subdivisions, which would either be large regions (like New England) or sometimes individual states if they don't reasonably fit within a region. Then on the large region pages we list the next level down, States. And on the state pages, we list the next division down, etc. We have to do this to avoid having a gargantuan one page guide for a country.


 * However, since we don't necessarily want people that are searching for a huge attraction to have to thumb through 20 pages to find the attraction they're looking for, we've created "Cities" and "Other destinations" sub-headings... where we can list 5-9 places that are probably the most sought after. Again, we have to limit this to avoid the lists running out of control.


 * My point is, the whole point of creating region articles is so that those regions can be described in more depth. North Island is a natural division of the country. And yes, it's more complex than that, which is why we've got a North Island article, where we can further subdivide it into subregions if needed, and talk all about how diverse and wonderful the North Island is. Nobody here is saying that NZ only warrants division into 4 or 6 regions. We're saying, at the TOP LEVEL there needs to be about that many. For ANY country. Here's the reasoning:


 * The 7±2 rule. Psychologists have discovered that human beings are hard-wired to group things into sets of 5-9 objects. If there are more than that many things to be grouped, we sub-divide the group into subgroups, each of which has up to 7±2 things in it. For Wikivoyage, this means that if there are very many countries in a continent, or cities in a country, it can be helpful to break those up into a number of groups, each of which has its own members.


 * I really don't want to you be so upset, so I hope that you'll pull back and try and see what I'm saying. Nobody's against you really. We've just got a pretty good system for dividing things up that we'd like to stick to, unless there's a good reason not to. And I don't see how NZ is an extraordinary case for not following what seems to be working. Does that help at all? – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 14:58, 28 May 2007 (EDT)


 * I'm going to have to agree with Gaimhreadhan here -- showing the Chatham Islands as the hierarchical equivalent of the entire North Island is just daft.   North, South and the rest is the obvious split importancewise.  Why not do as we do for the USA, Europe etc, and list the subregions in the description of the North and South Islands?  It doesn't take up much space, it's clear, and it provides handy access deeper inward if you already know where you're going. (WT-en) Jpatokal 14:50, 28 May 2007 (EDT)


 * Jpatokal, I'm not arguing whether the top level divisions are currently the best possible top-level divisions, but more arguing whether we should be listing the sub-subregions on the main page. I don't think it was ever discussed before the subdivisions were added to USA and Europe, and I'm not sure how I feel about it actually. Normally I don't think it would be a good idea, and in fact wouldn't be necessary if there was a good map in place showing the regions and what they include (there is for the USA). Europe's a continent, so I can understand it explaining what countries each section includes. But again, if the map was properly labeled, we wouldn't need to do this. I really don't think it's something we should start doing, it just isn't that necessary. – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 15:14, 28 May 2007 (EDT)


 * That's not a bad idea (and I wish Gaimreadhan had made that argument, instead of the opposite: that the whole hierarchy be flattened). But some of the smaller islands are clearly associated with either the South Island (e.g. Stewart) or North Island (e.g. Waiheke, which is more like a suburb of Auckland with ferries instead of highways, rather than a separate region).  I'd put those "in" the South Island and North Island regions, respectively, and leave the remote islands such the Chathams and Sub-Antarctics to a third "and the rest" region.  (Kind of like we have Isle Royale and Mackinac Island "in" the Upper Peninsula of Michigan even though they're obviously not part of the peninsula.)  I'm not univerally opposed to deep-linking, but I do think it's most useful when the sub-regions are substantial and internationally-known enough to be drawn on globes, such as the nations of Europe or the states of America.  If people want deep links, that's what the Cities and Other destinations sections are for. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 15:37, 28 May 2007 (EDT)


 * Gaimreadhan, you are way out of line here. Read the Project:Geographical hierarchy, it applies for all countries in the guide. Pay especial attention to Project:Geographical hierarchy, which explicitly explains why other editors took the lower level subdivisions off the main country page. If editors have issues with the policy for dividing geographical units, they should bring it up on the policy talk page. You most certainly don't have to visit a place in order to see that an article doesn't match the MoS. Lastly, there most certainly was a kind and diplomatic way to bring up your concerns; ignorant, culture-bashing comments have no place in this discussion or on Wikivoyage generally. --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald Talk 15:16, 28 May 2007 (EDT)


 * &rarr; Project:Geographical hierarchy – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 16:46, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Part II
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

 * North Island {as now, but adding the remote Kermadec Islands}
 * South Island {as now, but adding 1 new sub-region of Chatham Islands to the existing 8 sub-regions of Nelson Bays, Marlborough, West Coast, Canterbury, Queenstown-Lakes, Otago and Southland (existing sub-region, but would then have Stewart Island added)}
 * Cook Islands
 * Niue
 * Tokelau
 * Polar New Zealand (a new division to include the Ross Dependency and the various sub-antarctic islands of Auckland, Bounty, Campbell, Antipodes and the Snares)

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
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.
 * North Island {as now, but adding the remote Kermadec Islands}
 * South Island {as now, but adding 1 new sub-region of Chatham Islands to the existing 8 sub-regions of Nelson Bays, Marlborough, West Coast, Canterbury, Queenstown-Lakes, Otago and Southland (existing sub-region, but would then have Stewart Island added)}
 * Polar New Zealand (same new division to include the Ross Dependency and the various sub-antarctic islands of Auckland, Bounty, Campbell, Antipodes and the Snares)

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)

Other destinations
As noted elsewhere, the list of other destinations is a bit lengthy and (in my opinion) not really representative of the best "other destinations" the country has to offer, so I'm going to take a stab at revising it. Here's what I'm proposing as the nine Other destinations to list... feel free to comment, revise, etc. If I don't hear anything after 10 days or so, I'll update the page.

Bay of Islands - Pretty spot in the North Island with historical significance.

Coromandel Peninsula - Rugged coastline with plenty of beaches and hiking opportunities just two hours from Auckland.

Taupo - Trout fishing and adventure activities in the central North Island.

Tongariro National Park - Three volcanoes, two skifields and one of the most popular hikes in the country.

Hawkes Bay - Wineries in the hills and art deco architecture in Napier.

Abel Tasman National Park - Golden sand beaches, kayaking and the Abel Tasman Coastal Track.

Westland National Park - Home of the Franz Josef and Fox Glaciers.

Aoraki Mount Cook National Park - Lots of hiking opportunities and New Zealand's highest mountain.

Milford Sound - Beautiful fiord in Fiordland National Park.

- (WT-en) Shaund 19:14, 31 August 2008 (EDT)


 * Updated the list of other destinations. For future mining in other region articles, the old list is below. - (WT-en) Shaund 01:22, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

I have added the East Cape page below since I will be working on improving it. If its of no use here it could go on the north island page. Personally I think its a must for the more intrepid traveler - sam_22b june 2010
 * Taranaki - Mountain to Sea! The stand alone near perfect cone of the majestic Mount Taranaki guards over this province of rugged black sand coast line with world class surf beaches.
 * Taupo - Very popular tourist destination, largest Lake in the Southern Hemisphere & Worlds mecca for the Safest & Cheapest Skydiving!!
 * Havelock North - a great base for exploring the Hawkes Bay wineries, and home to Te Mata peak
 * Hokianga - wild, beautiful, bi-cultural
 * Elsthorpe - in Hawkes Bay is a beautiful country settlement
 * Feilding - voted New Zealand's most beautiful town 12 times in a row
 * Opiki - potato capital of New Zealand
 * Blenheim - Grape vines to the horizon with sauvignon blanc to die for
 * Kaikoura - great for whale watching.
 * Southern Alps - stretching the length of the South Island
 * Aoraki/Mount Cook - New Zealand's highest mountain
 * Omarama - World famous gliding destination
 * Milford Sound and Fiordland
 * East Cape - Isolated region in the east of the North Island that is rich in Maori culture and has a spectacular coastline.

The great NZ coffee debate..
I've joined the great NZ coffee debate! Coffee styles certainly deserve a mention, but it would be nice to have a NZ take on it, rather than repeating styles common elsewhere. I've had a go at improving it beyond the previous encyclopedic content. Please feel free to have a go to improve it further. --(WT-en) Inas 23:49, 3 December 2008 (EST)

New Zealand Information
Is it possible to link to this useful resource on New Zealand? New Zealand Travel Guide (WT-en) Loumac (talk)


 * No, sorry to say it is not permissible per Project:External links. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:28, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

Lead
I've rewritten the NZ lead. The old one was always so dry.. Anyway - it is probably far from perfect - so please plunge forward and improve it if you can.. (I've moved all the content that was in the lead, like climate info, etc down in the appropriate sections, so nothing has been lost) --(WT-en) inas 00:00, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

National Sport
I have made a change to say rugby union is the national sport which is clearly the case, to put netball alongaside rugby union in national significance is innacurate by any measure (player number, tv ratings, crowd attendances etc) and I have noted that netball along with cricket, rugby league and soccer is a popular sport.