Talk:Demographics of New Zealand

The main source for the table in the section on Demographics of New Zealand#Vital statistics is [1], which contains data on New Zealand for up to 2014. Clearly it is not the source for the data for 2015, 2016, and 2017. So what is the source for these?-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

A lot of the data for 2001 onwards is very similar to the data in Reference 2. @Gadfium: do you have an objection to my adding Reference 2 as a citation to the "vital statistics" table? By the way the provisional fertility rate quoted in that source for 2017 is 1.81. -- Toddy1 (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

By all means add the stats.govt.nz page as a reference for the table. You could probably remove the World Factbook for the table if we are then not using any numbers from it in that section.-gadfium 20:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I have been going through the sources to try to find out what says what.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The "Mid-year population estimate" figure in the Developed Countries Demography database for each year is evidently the average of the 1st January figure for the year and for the next year. I checked in Excel.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The "Average population" figure in the Vital statistics since 2001 was calculated as the average of the population in each quarter and rounded to the nearest 100.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Data in the Developed Countries Demography source

• "Developed Countries Demography". Institut national d'études démographiques. Retrieved 19 August 2017.

Note that this source does not contain these data before 1920 or after 2010

Data in Births and deaths: Year ended December 2017

• "Births and deaths: Year ended December 2017". Stats NZ Tatauranga Aotearoa. 18 February 2018. Retrieved 5 August 2018.
• "Table: Estimated Resident Population (Mean Quarter Ended) by Sex (1991+) (Qrtly-Mar/Jun/Sep/Dec)". Stats NZ Tatauranga Aotearoa. 2018. Retrieved 5 August 2018.

@BrugesFR: I wondered why some cells in the old version were coloured blue - my guess was that it was something to do with sourcing that was a holdover from an old version. I have put your edit summary in an explanatory note. There are some cells with values of 2.10 and above that you did not colour blue - was this accidental?-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Toddy1: I usually check my editions before modifying them. If it happened was accidental, you have all the rights to fix them but remind that these numbers in blue, it is a positive value to separate them this which indicate to a numbers that goes in detriment, which they lead to an older average age and the consequence is that the population is diminishing. Regards.--BrugesFR (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Ethnic % should add up to 100% not 110% as per article. -.@Photnart. (talk) 04:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC).

I have moved the explanatory footnote to the infobox. --Hazhk (talk) 22:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

This whole section is deleted @Aircorn? A table of vital statistics are standard on all country demographics pages, and it's very useful to actually see a statistic such as population births or deaths in a particular year--reading off a graph is not the same. Can someone manually undo this? 202.20.104.254 (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

No fear, I have fixed this problem. Tweedle (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTSTATS applies even on this page. At least collapse it. Aircorn (talk) 05:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Not really because this article is the main article for such statistics, nor is there a 'lack context or explanation' as to why they are here. I will collapse it by default anyway. Tweedle (talk) 11:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Why do we need multiple graphs showing the same thing? Aircorn (talk) 00:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Which graphs show the same thing? The graphs you deleted do not show the same thing and are not represented elsewhere in the article. The population pyramid over time shows the population pyramid of New Zealand changing from 1950 to 2020 (showing the population getting older) while the population growth over time graph shows population growth % in New Zealand from 1925 to today (showing annual % change of the population slowing down). Tweedle (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

The population pyramid is in the info box and the section. There are two graphs showing population growth. The total fertility rates (which is also in the table) is showing the same trend as the population growth percentage. All in all we have six graphs, two tables (one extremely large one) and an image covering population growth in some form for a section that has just two paragraphs. Aircorn (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I feel you are conflating the meaning of the table/graphs together or I am misunderstanding your point entirely. The fact the section has two paragraphs is irrelevant and irrespective of the images and tables.

First of all the population pyramid in the infobox and section are not the same and show different things from one another as one is the current year while the other is animation over time so I don't get the point there.

Second of all, the TFR graph is not the same as population growth as population growth can still grow from outside forces such as migration and is not exclusively dependent on the TFR of a country. The fact it shows the same trend is irrelevant as its purpose is to show New Zealand's TFR over time in a user friendly manner, the table version of TFR (this goes for the entire vital statistics table here) over time serves the purpose of a specific set of users who need to find a specific point in times TFR, population, natural change etc. etc.

I don't get your point on there being two graphs showing population growth, there is only one which you deleted previous, do you mean the population graphs over time? There is two of them (on the right is one of them). If so then I don't care about deleting the graph version above the current vital statistics but the rest should be kept in because they all show equally important things. Tweedle (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Its not irrelevant that it has two sections, as that has direct relevance to dueness of content (which includes graphs and tables). When an article is overloaded with images it is usual practice to remove some and the best targets are those which convey similar information. If you want the animated pyramid then move it to the infobox, but to have both in one article is overkill. As to the total fertility rates it is worth noting that we are not writing an article for a specific set of users, but for a general audience. Anyway since we can at least agree that one of the population graphs can go I will remove that one. Will you consider moving the population pyramid to the infobox? Aircorn (talk) 03:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

It is irrelevant in this case as that is a problem of quantity of text and is again irrespective of the images, nor is the content UNDUE at all, this is especially relevant in a subject like demography where a large portion of information can be conveyed using graphs. 2 extra images is not a 'overload', but for the sake of it I have made an extra section covering age structure so you will stop bring it up. "As to the total fertility rates it is worth noting that we are not writing an article for a specific set of users, but for a general audience" then where would you have us place the vital statistics table? Tweedle (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Try this: take the annual percentage growth rate for each of the ten years from say 1941 to 1950, and apply them cumulatively from 1.2 million
Percentages are, say, 14, 12, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 17, 16.
If the graph is right, the population at 1950 should then be approximately:
1.6*1.14*1.12*1.10*1.12*1.14*1.16*1.17*1.18*1.17*1.16 = 6.24 million.
Funnily enough, the population in 1950 wasn’t actually 6.24 million. It was less than a third of that, at approximately 1.9 million.
Therefore, the annual growth rate graph is, sadly, but definitely, rubbish. Boscaswell talk 09:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

typical kiwis are both pakeha and maori unless they are newer migrants that haven't yet mixed. Yet the article seems to imply we are not very mixed. 120.21.187.73 (talk) 07:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)