Talk:Canterbury Region

New Zealand Mid‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in New Zealand English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, analyse, centre, fiord) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

https://teara.govt.nz/en/canterbury-region/page-6

idiom?

...the Canterbury Regional Council (trading as Environment Canterbury)...: to my ears, the word "trading" in this idiom means that it's only appropriate for an actual business. For a govt body, a non-profit, or a club, I wouldn't even consider using it but would stick to the more prosaic often calling itself "Environment Canterbury" or suchlike. Is use of this idiom for non-businesses common in New Zealand? Doops | talk 07:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From what I remember, the legislation which restructured local government in NZ specifically mentions Canterbury Regional Council in the Act. Technically its legal name is that. However, for the purposes of controlling its public image or branding the entity has launched itself as Environment Canterbury. I can understand why the idiom doesn't sound right, speaking as a NZer who has lived in London for the last 7 years. However, the NZ attitude toward local government wouldn't split hairs as to the propriety of describing Environment Canterbury's activity as trading.JonathanG

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Northland Region which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Canterbury Region → Canterbury, New Zealand – This is one of a series of ongoing discussions about the names of the regions of New Zealand. The common name of most of the NZ regions seems to be the name of the region without the word "Region". This was a recent discussion that applied to this article, where it was argued by some that "Canterbury (region)" is inappropriately ambiguous. Given Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Disambiguation and WP:NATURAL, I believe that the proposed name is probably the best in this case. This was the name of the article until 2009, when the article was moved to its current form as part of an effort to standardise the names of the regions, an effort which I think was not a good idea given the different issues surrounding the region names. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Nurg (talk) 09:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination Ollieinc (talk) 09:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Canterbury, New Zealand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

I propose that Pūkio Stream, Kānuka Hills and Tawhai Hill should be merged into the geography section of this article. They are not independently notable features, and their shared claim to notability arises from a common aspect that could be discussed in this section without needless repetition elsewhere. bd2412 T 22:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge via this process I do not think that this is the appropriate venue. I think a full WP:AFD consideration should be held. Merge is a possible outcome. I think at AFD, the topic might be, deleted, merged, redirected or kept after being determined to be incompletely researched, resulting in an expansion. I don't think all possibilities will get fair consideration here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The hills and stream have been discussed by the government and media in the same articles because of what they had in common (example). There is otherwise no content. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge via this process as per TonyTheTiger. I've certainly seen the underlying issue discussed over some length of time in the news media, so wouldn't be convinced without a further look that these really do not meet GNG. Schwede 66 22:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the issue as discussed in the media apply to these places collectively, as opposed to individually? bd2412 T 22:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's dealt with here by the government as one issue. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am kind of busy for the next hour or two, so anyone can administer the AFD. If no one gets to it by then, I'll do it. It is the only proper consideration for this topic.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm about to leave for Thursday night yoga. If this has not been done by the time I get back, I will attend to it. bd2412 T 23:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tawhai Hill--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: @SlimVirgin: @Schwede66: @TonyTheTiger: FYI, I have re-opened this merge discussion at Talk:New Zealand Geographic Board, at least for Tawhai Hill and Kānuka Hills . SnowFire (talk) 04:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is quite reasonable to merge the hills. bd2412 T 04:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Otago which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moa hunters?

I was very surprised to see that moa hunters are described as being distinct from Maori. As far as I'm aware the moa hunter hypothesis was a racist colonial idea that hasn't been acceptable in the scientific community for decades. I'm an ecologist so not informed enough to make any edits but was quite shocked to see it mentioned and hope someone with deeper historical knowledge amends this. 119.224.87.61 (talk) 09:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't interpret the passage as saying that they are distinct, but if we both have two different interpretations then it's obvious that the section needs work. I don't know much about the subject myself so am unable to improve it. —Panamitsu (talk) 10:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Content about the 2010-2011 earthquakes

The content about the 2010-2011 earthquakes in this article seems overly long. Given that there are separate articles covering the earthquakes in detail, it seems to me that the content in this regional article is unbalanced and should be substantially reduced. Ideally, the topic would only be covered with a region-wide perspective, giving overall economic, social and related impacts, and with the benefit of more than 10 years post-event._Marshelec (talk) 07:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The quakes affected Christchurch, esp central south and east, and up to the Waimak area, with generally only minor damage inland. Most of Canterbury was not affected. You then had the 2016 Kaikoura quake that similarly only affected that region. The effects on those areas and the population was highly significant though, far too much detail for this article. It also involves the insurance/EQC fiasco. I think one subsection summarising the earthquake sequence is all that is needed. I would put Kaikoura into that section too even if it was not directly connected with the original 2010 quake. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Should be trimmed and summarized better. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed quite a bit of the excessive detail and I think it looks better now. I'd suggest adding a bit of detail about the amount of buildings that had to be repaired or demolished. 📊Panamitsu (talk) 04:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]