Talk:Timeline of New Zealand history

Comments lacking heading
I've grabbed the initial data from this: Statistics NZ page, which is under this copyright.

The stats NZ stuff is just intended is a rough pointer, I hope to get rid of 90% of their material pretty quickly. SimonLyall 10:24, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Stats NZ stuff seems OK in principle, no hurry to replace. This is the encouraging paragraph:
 * Copyright
 * Information obtained from Statistics New Zealand may be freely used, reproduced, or quoted unless otherwise specified. In all cases Statistics New Zealand must be acknowledged as the source.
 * So no worries yet?? Robin Patterson 10:03, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * No worries then SimonLyall 10:51, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Idea - start this again
I've been thinking about this page a bit tonight. All the entries from 1870 onwards (and much before that) are just cut and paste from the Stats NZ page. I'd like to suggest deleting all the content after 1870 (except headings) and starting again.

We can use the StatsNZ page are a reference for each year but basicly create new content as we go. At this stage of things it won't lose us much and avoid copyright worries. Entries before 1870 can be reworked as we go. Thoughts?

SimonLyall 11:29, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * As above - copyright doesn't seem to be a problem as long as we have a note at the top about "Statistics New Zealand ... acknowledged as the source". I wouldn't delete anything until a definite replacement is ready. Mind you, I haven't looked at anything after 1840! I'll have another look tomorrow. Have you skimmed through the general "year" pages, eg 1854? Robin Patterson 10:03, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I'll put external links at the bottom in a minute with a pointer to the StatsNZ page.The general years pages look okay (with their events, births, deaths, heads of state, etc) . I would suspect we will have to break this page up fairly soon (it's pretty long in its current state) but I don't want to do that until we have more than 4 or 5 lines for each year. SimonLyall 10:51, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Good work, Simon. We can break the page up when we get the "32k" warning. Meantime, we can keep copying text from elsewhere in Wikipedia and ideas from other countries, eg History_of_Canada and Category:Australian_history, as already discussed. (And I will be copying from here to http://mi.wikipedia.org, of course!) Robin Patterson 04:35, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm already getting the warning. Have a look (and update as required) at User:SimonLyall/test, It's a sample "year by year" page taken from on of the Canadian ones and slightly modified (it still has some canadian names in it). I'd suggest that once a year is more than (say) 20 lines long it's contents gets moved to it's own page. SimonLyall 05:33, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Birth and death
Mixed at present. Shortest is "xx xx born/dies" - but "Birth of" may be the form in which we copy from elsewhere, so saving time? Robin Patterson 03:33, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We will end up with just a header followed by some names ( like 1984 in Canada has ) eventually so I don't think it matters long term. One other format thing I'd like to keep is dates however. I think "Month day" is easiest and quicker to sort. I notice a few recent entries have been the other way around. SimonLyall 10:43, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why mention birth date of non kiwi?
Why is it necessary to record the following -- September 26: Birth of William Hobson, future Governor.? Why is the date he was born outside NZ important to the "Timeline of New Zealand history". Who cares? The link to William Hobson gives birth/death details (as it should) and that's where it should end. Moriori 07:21, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * A few reasons. (1) I'm trying to flesh things out a little and there wasn't a lot else happening that year. (2) A large number of people that probably should be mentioned wern't born in NZ (MJ Savage) or else spent much of their time elsewhere ( Kiri ), or even both (Sam Neil). I can't really see how if we are recording births then we could exclude Savage just because he was born in Australia and Hobson would merit a similar level of importance as Savage. I'll start splitting this page soon so I don't think concern that it's being cluttered with what some people might regard as minor events will be a problem. SimonLyall 15:16, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * You've lost me Simon. If you include the birthdate of Hobson in this article then you have to include every notable born outside NZ. . Imagine the length of the list! It's irrelevant, because as I say, Hobson's birthdate is included in the William Hobson article. Also., I don't think it is a good idea to deliberately pad out articles because they are short on content. Cheers Moriori 21:53, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * I think I have lost you. The big thing about births and deaths is that almost nobody is famous just for being born except for royalty. Same with deaths most of the time (since people are usually retired from what important thing they did). What the deaths and births section is there is to say what Important people in NZ history (usually people who are listed elsewhere in the timeline) were born of died that year. Hobson was a important person in NZ history (who did he important stuff in NZ and died here) so his birth should be listed. Would you exclude Michael Joseph Savage because he was born (and lived for 30 years) in Australia? Also this article is (timeline of the history of New Zealand NOT timeline of the history of New Zealanders). I don't think we are going to get into slippy slopes where we list (say) Paul McCartney just because he's had a lot of Number 1s on the NZ Charts. SimonLyall 01:58, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Please stick to the point Simon. You say  "Hobson was a important person in NZ history (who did he important stuff in NZ and died here) so his birth should be listed". It IS listed Simon, in the William Hobson article, where it belongs. If you are going to insist on it being included here, then we are going to end up with an article dominated by birth and death dates. I believe they are irrelevant in this article, and will clog it up so much the article will become about as interesting to the reader as the Beijing phone book. Moriori 02:33, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * I doubt very much it'll clog up the whole thing. Have a look at the various Timeline of Canadian history articles which I'm basing things off to an extent. Most years have 10-30 deaths. The dictionary of NZ biography lists just 298 deaths in the 1970s and 279 in the 1980s. So worst case the sections for each year might be 40 entries each (for something like 1941). There are a few birth and death dates now since they are fairly easy to lookup and enter ( I just did John Walker ) . I would hope that eventually for most years we will have 20 births, 20 deaths, 50+ News events, 50 cultural events (books, movies, NPC winners etc) plus whatever else. Births and deaths certainly shouldn't dominate. SimonLyall 03:29, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Your last sentence says it all. You advocate it, but don't do it. Also, because something is done elsewhere on Wikipedia that is not always a good lead as you will discover when you have been here a little while longer. I believe I have some knowledge to significantly contribute to the article, but I can't see the point of sticking around. There are subjects in Wikipedia where I believe I can contribute without being bothered by such silliness. I'm outta here. Moriori 06:05, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

Timeline references relative to New Zealand Timeline
When I was editing my first contribution Taumarunui, the year was listed that a certain trading post was set up, i.e. 1874. The natural tendency is to bang some square brackets on the date and make it a link/xref.

Unfortunately the destination of these link is mostly unrelated, as it is a global reference. I realise that this page is new, but I was thinking that this page could be used as a destination somehow. For example: 1874 or 1874 or for simplicity 1874 and have some kind of fancy redirects.

"Clearly" :-) the steps would be:
 * check if there isn't anything else doing the same (copy someone else?)
 * gauge the tempature of this community for the idea
 * put forward a proposal, collect feedback
 * revise proposal, and put out a poll/vote
 * add NZ year targets like 1960s / 1962 to the Timeline of New Zealand history
 * create a bot to update pages with a NZ stub and reference a year eg. 1874

Is this the right direction? Have I over looked the obvious?

Also: I am thinking that this is a lot of hard work. Please... someone chase me away.

NevilleDNZTALK? I realise I missed a couple of key points above:
 * Learn about what is already in place. eg. 2004_in_New_Zealand
 * Find out what the water tape is...

I note that User:Robin Patterson has already started 2004_in_New_Zealand. I am currently pondering if it would be better to call this page 2004, New_Zealand, (and thus 2004 in New Zealand where desired.) In line with how other NZ specific pages are disambiguated.

NevilleDNZ 01:55, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi, Neville and others. I think the form 2004_in_New_Zealand matches what other countries have, but I may be out of date there. (Check with a quick category-browse?) Whatever the "standard" is, I hope you can extend the series back. I have actual or potential links to it from the year pages I create on "mi:", eg mi:2004 and mi:1940. And when you put a date in an NZ article, it will be good to make it a link to the year in that series if it's not a world-significance event. I think I've done a couple already, in anticipation. Kia ora. Robin Patterson 04:05, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The idea with "fancy" redirects seems nice and easy to use (I prefer NZ2005 over Nz2005 though). The problem that I see(from google) that nz2001...nz2005 seem to be used as psuedo trademarks for sporting events.  I was pondering if we could use a punctuation mark to proactively avoid ambiguations.  eg 2005
 * I do wonder if we could use a Catagory somehow. eg (example Alfred Hamish Reed,  and ), these "half" automatically generate an automatic catalogue, but to be honest catagories only work end page, not mid page.... I am pondering of thre is another such construct for midpage hence avoiding having to enter the dates in two/three/four or more places...
 * BTW: (I chucked when I saw :mi:2003, nicely contrasts with :en:2003)
 * NevilleDNZ 13:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I've now thanked "Dramatic" for all the work on 2003 in New Zealand, which I had not seen when I wrote the above paragraph. Ka pai! The series is well under way. I suppose we could consider some "fancy redirects" to shorten the work? "nz2003", anyone? Robin Patterson 05:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Date/Event format
(Discussion Moved from Talk:New Zealand)

I've reverted the change of the years to point to the timeline of New Zealand history. This is because doing this screws up the date formats that people have set in their user preferences. Evil Monkey&#8756;Hello 00:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi, I am the kiwi that added the links to the NZ Time Line. I guess I must now play with my date preferences and find out what you are refering to.  To point NZ date to a global date wiki-page sometimes makes sense.  But sometimes (often) it is just "noise in the wiki", perhaps these better pointed at something relavent. NevilleDNZ 02:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I tried changing my date preferences as you suggested. And I cannot detect any differences in how the page is presented.  Please explain.  This is important as I am ironing out some bugs in a bot before I put forward a proposal to have all NZ pages pointed to the NZ Time Line with the bot, and also maybe even come up with a wiki derived timeline.
 * c.f. Talk:Timeline of New Zealand history
 * NevilleDNZ 02:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Did you refresh your cache? Currently my preferences are set to display the dates are 26 September 1907 but when viewing the version of the page that links to the timeline it sppears as 26 September, 1907 (note the addition of a comma). If you set you date peference to be of the style 2001 January 15, it appears as January 15, 2001. Evil Monkey&#8756;Hello 02:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Also readers expect to be taken to 1907 when they click on 1907 not be taken to a timeline page. Evil Monkey&#8756;Hello 03:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * To be honest, the only practical use for the year (without a relavent timeline) is in generating some kind of global cross reference, and maybe user format preferences. And even then the user format preferences dont give much mileage other then moving a comma.
 * I am looking for a template (like Template:coor) that can handle dates, and still works with User Preferences.)
 * NevilleDNZ 04:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It does more than add a comma -- having the preference of 2001 January 15, you get dates appearing like January 15, 2001. Evil Monkey&#8756;Hello 05:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I kind of sympathise with you, to be honest if someone really wants the date format in Ethiopian Buddest Format, then it should be able to be configured in their preferences. Similarly with their prefered unit of measure, km vs miles etc.
 * In the mean time I think I try improve the resulting date format by using a Template somehow. I will study various different formats, and see how it effects the user preferences, ultimately (IMO) NZ relative dates should point to a NZ Timeline.  None the less, thanx for picking this preferences issue up, otherwise I would have totally missed it.
 * NevilleDNZ 07:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of pointing New Zealand pages to New Zealand year artices (as long as it doesn't mess up preferences), but I don't think that Timeline of New Zealand history is the best page to link to. If anything we should be linking to individual years like 2004 in New Zealand. Wiki is not paper so there is really nothing to stop us creating a page for every since 1750 or something. Check out Timeline of Indian history. Evil Monkey&#8756;Hello 09:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * A few of us have been pondering this. I am trying to think of a way of making it so a Major Timeline catagory automatically drops out of it.  For example, tag certain dates as major (via a template), and then this page automatically gets linked into the Major NZ timeline.   .  These could be inserted on any relavent page, and the template would automatically take care of the format (inc month names), and the Timeline creation.
 * But we still can get a minor NZ timeline with the rest of the NZ related events by dropping the word major. Problem is I am still learning wiki, and misc problems like preferences pop up, and I am then (kind of) obliged to research the official and/or the best solution.
 * Any ideas for the brew most welcome. The Indian Page is useful.
 * NevilleDNZ 13:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Here is an experimental Category_talk:Timeline_of_New_Zealand, does anyone know how to extend the year to 4 digits, rather then just the millienia as it is currently? 15:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

All Black Matches
If people are looking for something to do I've started copying in results of All Black matches into years. See 2004 in New Zealand. Just start at the page and click on old matches to fill in a year. Each match can be clocked on to get more details. IF peopel have a similar link for Cricket or other sports please post them. SimonLyall 20:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand this
In 1941, it mentions that Ian Mune was born (I don't know whom this is). However, many Maoris were killed in the Battle of Crete in that year. Also, the Battle of Cassino 1944, where the Maoris took a big part is also not mentioned. In addition Charles Upham won two VC's, which I would have thought rated a mention. I think the timeline is out of kilter, somehow. Wallie 19:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's wiki (and, in particular, that's lists on wiki). There's a lot of trivial stuff mixed up with the serious here. Needs a NZ editor (or somebody with a good knowledge of the country) to trim and refactor it. --kingboyk 14:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

At the battle of crete, there were 3,500 maori, 300 died. it might not seem like much to the 6,000(or so) who died at the beach of normandy. but to them it was because there were so few. im into historys of new zealand, especially maori, seeing as i am maori. [brother_h] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.54.87 (talk) 11:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The less important events (births & deaths, etc) should probably be moved to the 19XX_in_New_Zealand pages. Some of this has already been done. - SimonLyall 20:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * A quick Google will tell you who Ian Mune is you young whippersnapper you! He is one of New Zealands first generation of television actors and has performed in a number of films, advertisments and stage productions. Trivial maybe today's dross - but tomorrows taonga of social commentary. Bottom line, if you see something is missing, addit. Wiki will tell us when the hard drives are full. L-Bit 13:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No no no! This is supposed to show important and significant events in the history of NZ and is not a collection of "I think this person is great so he needs mentioning" or similar.  I've gone through and trimmed lots of it, which I hope goes in line with this.  violet/riga (t) 10:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally I'm not in favour of the 'such and such person was born in this year' entries. They don't say anything about the state of NZ in that year, even if the person went on to become super famous. We should limit this to events which were significant in their own right. Having said that, I don't think 'A is on this list but B isn't, and B is obviously more important' is an argument for deleting A. It always irritates me when people write stuff along the lines of 'this page is crap, it doesn't have such and such'. Um... anyone can contribute so if you see a problem... fix it. --Helenalex 22:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think most of the born/died entries can be removed. Unless the birth or death of the person was an event in itself. Some other stuff needs to be cut down really the page should have more than an entry or two for each year on average. - SimonLyall 07:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have removed all births except one and all deaths except when in office. - SimonLyall 07:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Table of Contents
Shall I set up a TOC for here as I did with Timeline of environmental history of New Zealand? Looks a bit nicer - in my opinion..... -- Alan Liefting talk 00:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The TOCright you added looks fairly good, especuially with the short early entries. - SimonLyall 10:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Should important dates be deleted?
Dylan Naqova (talk) 03:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC) i reckon people and special events like Prince William coming to nz should be marked on the events
 * I think the events you are adding would be much more appropriate at 2010 in New Zealand and similar pages. I don't see other royal tours on this page, yet tours by the monarch are surely far more important than tours by the second in line to the throne. The redevelopment of a stadium does not appear to be of great significance other than, perhaps, to the city which contains it. The reintroduction of knighthoods is perhaps of more lasting significance and is suitable for this page.- gadfium 05:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Present tense or past tense?
Just wondering why the article is written (mostly) in present tense? I think it would read more naturally in the past tense. Tayste (edits) 06:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the convention for Timeline, Year and Year in Topic articles. See WikiProject Years. (Talk Contribs) 06:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That doesn't specify which to use, apart from giving examples written in present tense. Sounds strange to me, that's all. I guess it's a device to put the reader into that time period, as it were.  Tayste (edits) 08:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The surplus in 2006
This is a transient supurlative and its inclusion here looks more like a pro-Labour beat up (the unnecessary inclusion of Michael Cullen's name supports this) than an inherently notable entry. It belongs in 2006 in New Zealand but doesn't belong here unless other similar economic records are going to be included, and there is not enough room in the article for them all. Such biggest/most entries eventually become (out)dated and should be used sparingly (there are far too many of them in Year articles as it is). (Talk Contribs) 09:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. I doubt that anyone would want to see every previous record surplus included. Nor should we include every record GDP figure, or date of record population (which would be every year). We do include some dates when the population hits a round figure, though. Any such record which was achieved a very long time ago might be notable if it hasn't been beaten in modern times. We currently have three figures for record numbers of unemployed, but these are given as absolute numbers. I'm not sure if these are suitable. The unemployment rate in the 1930s may have been higher than at any time since as a proportion of the population (or of the working-age population), and if sourced that might be more appropriate. If the 1991 unemployment figure is a post-war high, then maybe that would be worth keeping too.- gadfium 10:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Tasman section on Nz attributed to Flude.
Flude's account of history is unreliable, extreme fringe and only online. Flude's account of events at Murderers Bay is largely fiction. There are versions of this event that say archaeologists "suggest" that Maori (Ngati Tumatakokiri) were defending a major agricultural area. Im not sure who these are supposed to be but it sounds dubious. Any one visiting this lovely bay will be struck by the lack of flat land. Europeans who attempted to farm in the area failed, due to the naturally infertile granite based soils. The huge number of waka that Tasman saw(22) suggests a maritime based economy rather than one based on crops. Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The current entry in this article is concise and uses neutral language, what you added did not and the reference, as you have been told repeatedly, is no more reliable than that which is used here. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The entry you refer to by what appears to be a blogger, with a very poor grasp of Nz History, is factually incorrect. There is no evidence any Maori was actually killed. The blog this is referenced to contains dozens of amateurish errors. You are not seriously saying this is blog is better than an account from Abel Tasman's own diary? I will shorten the account as it is too long. Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of local government elections?
Hello all! I recently stumbled across this page, and just wondering if local government elections are notable enough to be included? Cheers Ballofstring (talk) 03:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I would think not. A link to Local elections in New Zealand (although that article is far from complete and needs work) in the See also section would be sufficient. (Talk Contribs) 04:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree with Derby: the only municipal elections that get any sort of prolonged notice in the NZ media are those for the Auckland Council mayoralty. Most New Zealanders would struggle even to name any mayors other than those of Auckland, their local authority area, and some older people may know of the mayor of Invercargill.
 * (Derby: has something gone weird with your signature? It's suddenly ballooned to about ten lines of code.) Daveosaurus (talk) 07:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * My sig looks the same to me, just using basic wiki options: " blue (Talk Contribs)" Cheers, (Talk Contribs) 07:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Timeline of New Zealand history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100602110733/http://www.gns.cri.nz/what/earthact/volcanoes/nzvolcanoes/aucklandprint.htm to http://www.gns.cri.nz/what/earthact/volcanoes/nzvolcanoes/aucklandprint.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Re land Confiscated 1864
This could have been misconstrued as ALL land confiscated which is inaccurate. In all 4% of NZ's land was confiscated from Maori who started or joined in the 1860s' insurrection but with a change in government 6 months after the Waikato war ended in 1864 roughly half of this land was returned -most  to kupapa tribes but even to tribes who had been in rebellion. Those rebels who surrendered were treated more kindly than those who continued to make trouble. Perhaps understandably the tribes who were in the initial insurrection,then continued to oppose the government by joining either the Te Kooti insurrection or the Hau hau rebellion had more land confiscated, but even these tribes received back large reserves of land. In one well known case an iwi, on getting back its land then sold it to the government who incorporated it in a state forest(it was what kiwis call "bush"-heavily forested hill country.) Iwi by the 1870s and 1880s no longer needed this sort of land (for timber for waka or pa) as they were no longer hunter-gatherers but got income from subsistence farming, fishing, some hunting and seasonal work on roads, making fences and shearing.115.188.178.77 (talk) 08:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it couldn't be misconstrued as "ALL the land was confiscated", except buy someone with very poor grasp of the English language. The rest of your argument is, as usual, irrelevant. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 08:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with DerbyCountyinNZ. The only phrasing that could be construed that way is "the land in the Waikato ..." or "all land in the ...". Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Time period headings
@Roger 8 Roger - can you point to literally anywhere that describes the 1820s as prehistoric? Oral histories are still historic, and it is far more useful to a reader for the historical periods to describe the period prior to human settlement and then prior to the wholesale arrival of Europeans.

I'd also like to ask you to cut out the personal attacks which you've made against me in multiple edit summaries this morning - if you continue to accuse me of bad faith editing I'll have to take this further. Turnagra (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The 1820s in NZ were not prehistoric. Prehistoric means before writing or similar tangible records came along, which means prehistory ended at different times in different places. Europeans learn it as being before the Romans/Greeks - around 2,000-3,000 years ago (ie cave men imagery) which it was in Europe. (I think that is why you don't like the term). But in other places it was much later. In New Zealand there are no written sources until Cook in 1769 (some might say Tasman in 1642). That's one reason why NZ history is unusual, it jumped from prehistoric to modern almost instantly.


 * Prehistoric also starts with people, human history, which in most places goes back tens or hundreds of thousands of years. There weren't humans in NZ till about 1300 so it's wrong to say the time before that was prehistoric. The best description I can think of is to use the eras of geological time, because human history eras don't apply. That's another interesting and unusual point about NZ.


 * I am sorry you took offence at what I intended as a mildly humorous quip about the espresso - I saw your reversal at 7.00 am, and I know you know Waitangi was not a declaration of sovereignty, so it came across as making a political point while not fully awake. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My issue with prehistoric is that it's misleading and comes with certain connotations that cause more issues than they're worth. It's the same to a lesser extent with "geological time", it feels weird describing stuff that happened less than 2000 years ago in the same way that we describe stuff from millions of years ago. I don't see a good reason to use those terms when there are other options that better align with New Zealand's history and are more useful for readers. Turnagra (talk) 09:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think prehistoric technically is correct for 1300-1769 but I agree it does have implications that cause misunderstandings and problems. I do think though it is a point of interest. It might be better to use another term for the heading and explain 'prehistoric' in the article. For pre-1300 time I think we should not use prehistoric because it is the wrong word. I think geologic time is fine but if you prefer another title then what? 'Before the arrival of humans' might work. We could then use 'Before the arrival of Europeans' for the 1350-1769' period. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think something along those lines would be better - my original edit used "pre settlement" and "pre colonial" which I think would be okay. I did consider "pre-European" or something similar but thought that the early explorers kind of mess with the neatness of that as a boundary (though if we do make it "pre-colonial", it should probably be moved to start at 1800 given the colonisation process started prior to 1840. Turnagra (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Wiki definition of Prehistory: " [prior to] the beginning of recorded history with the invention of writing systems." There being no 'written history' of New Zealand prior to European contact, this make pre-history in New Zealand everything prior to 1642. Pre-history can be further divided into "Prior to human settlement" (accepted estimate 1350, i.e everything before 1350) and post human settlement (i.e c.1350-1642). The historic period is therefore everything post-1642. Based on the current divisions this would cover the period 1642-1839, with appropriate subdivisions by century (as currently), and the later divisions all as current. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 07:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Quote from chapter One Prehistory is the study of human events before the advent of written accounts. Since there are no documents, the study has traditionally been carried on by anthropologists, not historians. Because the only comprehensive record of prehistoric activity is the material left buried in the ground, research in this field has been undertaken by archeologists who conduct field survey 3 and site excavations in order to obtain the primary data used in their chronological and cultural reconstructions. That means before maori arrived there was no prehistory because there were no humans. My comments about the possible titles are... 1/ To use 'pre-colonial is ambiguous. NZ wasn't colonised by Europeans till after about 1820 or 1830. Strays, whalers and crooks weren't really colonisers. And, according to Micheal King 'NZ has the almost unique honour of being colonised twice.' (I can't remember the exact quote). That won't go down well with some members of society but it's true. 2/ I prefer 1769 to 1642 because although there was some written evidence from Tasman it is very little and very uninformative about NZ as a whole, so it doesn't really give us anything to work with. I would guess that most Maori groups carried on as normal without ever hearing of the encounter. Compare that to Cook's visits - full mapping, Joseph Banks records and drawings of what they saw. There's a huge difference. What about a/ 'Before humans/people arrived b/ 'After Maori arrived, c. 1300 AD/CE 3/ After Europeans arrived, 1769.  Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * At the risk of complicating things further, it would seem that Protohistory is applicable here. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 09:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Update self-correction - I think my quote above by Michael King should be 'discovered twice' not 'colonised twice'. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I totally agree that it's difficult to define given similar terminology could be used to describe the arrival of Māori and the arrival of Pākehā. Also agree that Cook's visit makes more sense than Tasman's as a watershed of sorts. I'd be happy with something like "before human settlement" for the first heading, but I think the second one could do with more work. This is mainly because I think that if you're saying "After Europeans" then it feels weird having stuff related to Europeans beforehand, whereas tying it to colonisation (whenever we decide that the time for that heading is best placed) gives it a nicer boundary and reflects the turning point in NZ society more than the early explorers do. Turnagra (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

What about 1/ Before human arrival 2/ After Polynesian settlement, c.1300 3/ After Captain Cook's arrival, 1769? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I haven't participated in the discussion but I think this is a much better choice of words. I think we should avoid a mention of "colonisation" as the country was colonised twice. The word has several meanings, with the European one defined by the Oxford dictionary as "settle among and establish control over (the indigenous people of an area)", and the Maori one being settling in general, such as Mars colonisation. ―Panamitsu (talk) 23:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Given the political connotations of "colonisation", it would be better if the word was avoided where not actually necessary. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 23:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm happy enough with these (though don't agree that we need to avoid using "colonisation" per se) - my question though is whether we need to have the Cook heading, given at the moment it has Māori arrival through to signing of the Treaty of Waitangi as one section and I think that seems fine? Would just be a case of changing the first two headings in that case. Turnagra (talk) 23:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you mean the sections in the infobox template, I think they are not ideal. I think the three most important time periods are the ones being discussed now. The other key dates should fall within those main time periods. Eg, although 1907 and in 1947 are important, IMO they are only stages within the wider creation of NZ as it is now. The same can be said for 1840, whether the declaration of sovereignty or the treaty, they were both only stages which began in 1769 when NZ was opened up to rest of the world. So, IMO that structure in the IBX should be redone to have three main headings and a number of sub-headings, nearly all of which will be under the post 1769, Cook's arrival, section. This might receive some resistance from those who think that a key turning point was the treaty when Maori "permitted" the UK to have the sovereignty Maori already had and to live alongside Maori, but that is not what happened. If that were the case, for example, the declaration of sovereignty over the SI would not have been on the basis of discovery, as it was, but rather by secession. There were permanent European settlers already in NZ in 1840 and even more on their way. European settlement would have occurred even without the treaty, though probably in a far more disorganised way, detrimental to all. I think the treaty is a key event in NZ history, but more from an abstract psychological or cultural possion reather than a legal position. What has happened with the Tribunal is about the law, not about history and I think this is often muddled up. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with not having the Cook heading. His arrival wasn't massively important in the grand scheme of things. Spekkios (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The original problem was about the time periods in the subheadings, which were inaccurate. The article is simply about a timeline of NZ history, that could be done in different ways, including not using historic eras of time, but instead simply have a chronological list of dates. If we keep the historic periods, then 1769 is fundamentally important because it marks the change from one era to another, and I think saying NZ went from prehistoric to modern is best avoided. But, dropping the subheadings of historic eras might be the simplest approach. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to overthink this - the current top level divisions (roughly pre-1300, 1300-1839, 1840-1947, and 1947-present) seem fine to me, I just think we need to work out what the best name for the first two is. And I think we've landed on something akin to "Before human arrival" and "After Polynesian settlement", am I right? Turnagra (talk) 08:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with that. I think the arrival of Europeans is at the same level of importance, meaning 1769. I think everything after that is below that in importance. However, if we have three main divisions, there won't be anything, or very little, in the first two but lots in the post 1769 section, which will look odd.