This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

New Zealand Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Islands This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands 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.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands

I propose that Te Waka a Māui be merged into this page. The standalone article is a stub, lacks sources, and is just an alternative name for the South Island. Alternative names such as Te Waipounamu do not have respective articles. I propose that some of the information from the article be merged into the South Island#Māori mythology section of this page as the information overlaps. The section is already pretty short and this page merge will add to it. I also suggest that Te Waka a Māui becomes a redirect to this page, with the name being included in the lead alongside the existing Māori name information. Ebalia Nux (talk) 20:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• comment it's quite a chunky section to add back into the Mythology section on the SI page. But it might useful for it all to be together? Re sources, Te Waka a Māui definitely needs some but it's all fairly wellknown stuff and should be simple to find some sources (Te Ara a good starting point). TreeReader (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only two sources in the article don't discuss the subject and the rest of the prose is unsourced. You are better off just blanking and redirecting it and adding sourced content about it. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:00, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect I think it is simpler to copy any appropriate (and sourced) content into this article and then turn the page Te Waka a Māui into a Redirect._Marshelec (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the article should be removed, not merged into South Island. There's nothing really there to merge. There is a risk in merging it as is that we end up with a hefty chunk of uncited maori lengend in this article that is overly weighted. Most of that article should be merged into an article about maori legends, not this South Island article. What is justified here IMO is mention of the maori name being official and one or two sentences somewhere about what the legend is. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:30, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the page Te Waka a Māui is not needed. I wouldn't put that name in the lead of this article either, because it would get too clunky. A sentence or two added to the other mythology content would be appropriate, with a redirect from Te Waka a Māui. Wainuiomartian (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have converted the page Te Waka a Māui into a redirect, after adding citations to the section on Māori mythology in this article._Marshelec (talk) 06:50, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Much appreciated. Ebalia Nux (talk) 06:51, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article currently has several lists that duplicate existing separate list articles. Some of these lists are long (more than one screen high). It is unclear to me that the South Island article requires these lists. Removing these lists, but leaving links to separate list articles would make the article easier to read. The lists seem tiresome for the reader, and there is inconsistency with North Island where there are fewer similar lists. Further, having similar or identical lists in two places adds to the difficulty of maintaining articles and can lead to inconsistency between versions in different places. There are also some small lists of dubious value for the article. Most of the lists could be removed, although in some cases it would be useful to leave a brief overview statement and a link to the relevant list article.

Lists in the current article that could be candidates for removal include:

• the section Administrative divisions is mostly duplicated by Territorial authorities of New Zealand. The table in this separate article currently does not have a sorting parameter for "island", but that could easily be added. Then just a brief overview statement and a link to the separate article would be required in South Island
• the section Political parties has a list of political parties, past and present, who have their headquarters in the South Island. This seems to be relatively unimportant information for this article and could be removed.
• the section Trade unions has a list of South Island-based trade union organisations. Information about trade unions in New Zealand is given in New Zealand Council of Trade Unions. Having a list of South Island-based unions seems to be relatively unimportant information for this article. It could be removed.
• the section Ski areas and resorts is mostly duplicated by List of ski areas and resorts in New Zealand. It is not clear that there is justification for including such a list in the South Island article (eg if a list of Ski areas and resorts remains, what about golf courses or sports stadiums ?) It could be removed, with a brief overview statement and a link to the separate article left in this article.
• the section Airports is duplicated by List of airports in New Zealand. The table in this separate article currently does not have a sorting parameter for "island", but that could easily be added. Then just a brief overview statement and a link to the separate article would be required in South Island
• the section Protected areas is partly duplicated by National parks of New Zealand. It is currently set in a list but not in table format. The list is rather long and may be better presented in table format with content trimmed. The topic of national parks is probably worth retaining in this article, but the list could be reduced to just national parks, leaving out the forest parks.
• the section Emergency medical services seems excessively detailed, to the extent of including the model of helicopter. The detail here seems out of balance and the section could be removed, and possibly transferred into Emergency medical services in New Zealand
• the section Museums is a small list that is partly duplicated by List of museums in New Zealand. The table in this separate article currently does not have a sorting parameter for "island", but that could easily be added if thought necessary. Then just a brief overview statement and a link to the separate article would be required in South Island.

Feedback on this please, before I begin making changes. Marshelec (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The list of airports is a good example of unneeded detail that is duplicated elsewhere. Wainuiomartian (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but would look at the problem from a different angle. This became clear to me a few months ago when I sifted through the history section. I think this article is far too large and should be reduced by at least 80%, thereby removed most of these lists. Start looking at it from the start - what is particularly notable about the SI (meaning what justifies its own article)? Not much I think, and certainly not such things as local govt bodies which are identical with NI govt bodies, except they happen to be on the SI. Detail specific to the SI is limited and relates mainly to when NZ was becoming a country, such as the separate declarations of sovereignty or the maori creation myth. So, why not get consensus to take out a very large part of this article? The same problem affects other articles that are filled with off-topic detail. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this makes a lot of sense. I think we should focus more on the things that are unique to the South Island and to me that seems mostly to be geographical stuff, and a few historical or political things involving most of or the entire island such as South Island nationalism. ―Panamitsu (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Panamitsu @Roger 8 Roger yes! Wainuiomartian (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I would think this article should be narrowed to specifically unique aspects of the South Island, not stuff that is the same as in the North Island. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great ideas, there are some pretty random sections on this page - some of which already have been fixed since you started this discussion!

• The sections I reckon are fairly good as is are Geography, Protected Areas (could you explain why you think forest parks aren't worth including with the National parks? a table is a good idea though), Natural History, and Demographics.
• I would include the list of political parties with SI headquarters briefly somewhere in the history section, or politics section if that turns up.
• Museums yep this could just be linked to NZ museums and seems incomplete anyway. A brief mention/wikilink to list in the culture section should do.
• Ski areas I see your point, however they one of the things the SI is known for, and a point of difference with the North Island (yes I know there are some but it's a very different scale).
• Airports I like the way this section has been condensed.

TreeReader (talk) 02:40, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History section: this section is currently three long bullet point lists. The timeline is interesting, but many entries are uncited. I note that there is a separate article Timeline of New Zealand history giving a list of national historical events. What is the best approach for the History section of this article ?

1. leave largely as-is, but try to find sources and add citations
2. copy the list contents into a new list article Timeline of South Island History and delete the lists from this article entirely, leaving just a link to the new list article
3. create a new list article as above, but construct a short section in prose that describes South Island history at summary level

Feedback please._Marshelec (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Marshelec I've just had a quick glance. I would condense it to short prose paragraphs without bullet points but with links, 'see also' and sources as necessary, and try to contain it to items relevant to the South Island as a whole, not one town. E.g. under events, I'd move all the earthquake-related items to the geography/earthquakes section (since earthquakes have repercussions over a wide area), and I'd get rid of the Christchurch mosque because that has no particular relevance to the South Island (it just happened to have occurred there but could have happened anywhere). Wainuiomartian (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And the bullet points about power stations and hydroelectricity could either go under the section called 'Energy', or be turned into a brief paragraph about major historical developments in electricity generation. I just prefer themes over bullet-point timelines, because similar events are then grouped together to provide a big picture. Wainuiomartian (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did the bullet points a while ago which is when I realised the problem with the article. The points were better than what was there before which was rambling off-topic story-telling, but it is still not good. I left it as is, in the hope someone else would deal with the whole article and that is now happening. I am now beginning to think that this article should be only about SI geography. Almost everything else is not SI alone, with very few exceptions, such as the declaration of sovereignty, but even that also included Stewart Is. The exceptions are minimal, such as New Munster. I would not change the bullet points for text because the same problem will arise as before - people will fill up the text area with off topic detail, thus creating the sort of mess we are trying to sort out. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There will be a range of opinions about what constitutes off-topic for this article. Although comparisons with other articles have their limits, I decided to look for an example of a high quality article about a part of a country, to see how it was treated. I found this featured article: Northern England. Clearly there are major differences in context, but I still think the comparison is useful. The Northern England article contains a well-written summary of history in prose. Given the much shorter recorded history of New Zealand, I am sure we could prepare some prose about the history of the South Island. If I am to attempt this, I will aim to follow the suggestions of Wainuiomartian, and try to use a thematic approach where possible, rather than just a strict timeline. The article is classified as Level 4 in the vital articles framework, suggesting that we should give it reasonably high priority and make it reasonably comprehensive. There is still content that I think could be removed from some sections, but I favour retaining topics beyond Geography, including retaining a History section - but not in the current bullet point format._Marshelec (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I though about northern england before looking so as to try to image how it was done, and i had trouble. However, that article looks pretty good, but it would have taken a lot of work. There are many factors that make NE notable. I am still having trouble trying to think of what it is that makes the SI notable. Overwhelmingly I come back to its being the southern/main island of NZ, which means its notability is geographical. That is not the case with NE. What else makes the SI notable? There was the attempt to create a rugged south island sheep herder on horseback who liked his speights but that never really took off. I'm keen to see local govt areas removed - what possible relevance do they have to the south island We might as well mention them in an article about the south pacific ocean - because they are in that geographic region too. I think nz is too new for a special SI identity to have developed, which does not apply to NE, or SW England, or East Anglia. Regional identities do exist on the SI but they are around the original settlements - such as the old school cantabrians. Anyway, if you want to have a go at creating something, good luck, it will be interesting to see what you come up with. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:03, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with converting it to prose – in normal length paragraphs, not short ones specifically. From a quick look, I suspect the amount of culling will start small and increase going down the timeline. For example, most of the Māori period content can be kept, though the Kāi Tahu–Kāti Māmoe stuff needs consolidating, instead of being separated by Tasman. Perhaps a bit more culling of the 2nd section, without reducing it just to island-wide material. The main settlements (Nelson, Otago, Canty especially) were all regional but significant, for example. There are perhaps some current omissions to be filled – there's nothing really about sealing or whaling, for example, which pops into my head as something that perhaps should be covered. In the post-1860 section there's probably quite a lot to be culled, but equally quite a lot of new content needed, to get it more like the modern hist section of Northern England. The hardest, most time-consuming effort will be that new content. Thoughts off the top of my head would be economic transitions such as from sealing & whaling, to wool growing, to meat production (with the invention of refrigerated shipping), to cropping, to dairying. Major industrial developments such as hydroelectricity and Tiwai. A bit about tenure review in the South Island. Perhaps something about conservation history, although perhaps that might go in the following sections. Perhaps something about gateway to Antarctica (Chch these days, but if memory serves me, Timaru and Bluff in the past). That's off the top of my head, so needn't take me too seriously. Nurg (talk) 07:06, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'd broadly agree with this, and extend the approach to a lot of the areas outlined above (in that the content of lists could be replaced by having prose paragraphs). Without wanting to kick anything off, I think it would be worth actually seeing what was in the history section before it was converted into the current list. From a quick look, I suspect that one man's rambling off-topic story-telling is actually another man's well-rounded historical coverage (albeit with some improvement still needed). Turnagra (talk) 08:17, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For example -what does the French settlement at Akaroa have to do with the SI? Just being on the SI isn't enough, and that is a mistake that was made and if we are not careful will be made again. I think the answer is almost nothing. (Possibly the SI was chosen as an island because the British were more established on the NI).oSimilarly, what relevance has the Canterbury settlement got to the SI specifically? Again, nothing - several places were considered around all NZ and the chc site seemed the best for several reasons, not because it was on the SI. Whaling and sealing? The SI harbours were closer to the whales but stations were set up all over NZ. From memory, the list I created from the prose about maori history till 1840 was simply a shortening of words used, not culling detail. Four words used to say what had previously taken ten. The reason was because the whole section was not balanced with proper weighting - and still isn't, not unless we can show that after about 1840 a separate SI identity was lost when previosely it had existed - thereby justifying more attention given to the 1769-1850 period. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:13, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fundamentally disagree - I think all of those things are absolutely relevant to an article on the South Island, because they help to tell the island's history (particularly the Canterbury settlement). The Gold Rush is a huge part of the history and yet it didn't affect Canterbury so using your logic we shouldn't mention it at all. I think it's more a question of making sure the coverage is due and doesn't go into too much detail. Like the French in Akaroa should be a passing mention only, in the context of the colonisation of the wider region. Turnagra (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Following from the discussion about reducing the content of this article, I shortened the section on National Parks. I added a link to National parks of New Zealand, and each park is linked to its own page, so it seemed superfluous to have more detail in this article. But if anyone has strong objections, feel free to reverse my edit. Wainuiomartian (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! Good synthesising. TreeReader (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than just mention some artists who happen to have been born or worked in the South Island, shall we briefly note artists who have been inspired by the landforms of the SI - Rita Angus, Colin McCahon, Toss Woolaston etc? I can have a go, but is there anybody arts-minded who could do this? Wainuiomartian (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wainuiomartian I think that if a significant artist becomes well-known and recognised for works that feature the South Island then it could be worth including a brief mention. One other name that comes to mind is Grahame Sydney, for his depictions of the landscapes of Central Otago._Marshelec (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another well-known landscape artist with a body of work featuring the South Island is John Gully (artist). I think the article could also briefly mention well-known artists based in the South Island who have done work inspired by the South Island even if their work is more abstract and not a depiction of landscape. Artists in this category would include: Nigel Brown, Ralph Hotere and Bill Hammond. A notable artist who grew up and studied in Christchurch is Philip Clairmont. If there is going to be brief content about the visual arts, then notable authors/writers based in the South Island or who have been associated with the South Island could also be mentioned in a short section (eg Janet Frame, Ngaio Marsh, Keri Hulme, Mona Anderson, Hone Tuwhare, Bub Bridger. Also Bill Manhire grew up in Otago and studied in Dunedin, and Denis Glover grew up in Dunedin and studied and lectured in Christchurch, and founded the Caxton Press (New Zealand). Overall, I think the priority should be for those well-recognised artists whose work features or is clearly inspired by the South Island, or who have become particularly well-known as South Island-based (ie just studying in a South Island institution would not be sufficient to warrant inclusion in this list)._Marshelec (talk) 08:26, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if it's worth including a section on this - there is already a paragraph titled "independence movement". I found that there is an existing article on this theme: South Island nationalism. Wainuiomartian (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

that article can probably be merged into this article TheLoyalOrder (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any real rivalry? I'd say these 'independence' movements are trivial. There's that rugby game SI v NI, but that's all I can think of where rivalry exists. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thought of the rugby game and the cries to "cut the cable". It was just a thought. Wainuiomartian (talk) 03:16, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the usage of "mainland" that is already covered in the article, I don't think North-South rivalry warrants much coverage. However, I suggest retaining the existing article South Island nationalism and linking to it with a brief summary, from South Island. The nationalism article has some decent content but the length and focus means that it is best left as a separate article and linked as per WP:SUMMARY rather than merged. If someone can find the time, it would be worth trimming some of the more general history from South Island nationalism because it overlaps unnecessarily with other articles._Marshelec (talk) 02:18, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I might do that. Wainuiomartian (talk) 03:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't think they should be merged, same reasons as Marshelec. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:11, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently has no content about farming, but this needs to be covered at a summary level. Agriculture (and particularly pastoral farming) has been a major part of the South Island contribution to national GDP over the years. It has led to the formation of settlements across the South Island and has had a huge effect on the South Island landscape, culture and economy. If suitable sources can be found, it would be good to provide an overview of farm settlement and land clearance. One of the notable events in the history of farming in the South Island is New Zealand's first export of refrigerated meat, from the Totara Estate, Oamaru, on the Dunedin (ship) in 1882. Another of the interesting back-stories that could be briefly mentioned is Tenure review in the South Island. Some related articles that could be linked include: Station (New Zealand agriculture), High country (New Zealand), Agriculture in New Zealand, Sheep farming in New Zealand, New Zealand wool boom, Dairy farming in New Zealand. Irrigation of farmland could be mentioned. The Rangitata Diversion Race was the first major river diversion and the largest irrigation scheme in the country at the time. There are significant on-going controversies related to dairy farming and irrigation in Canterbury in particular, and its influence on the South Island environment and on water supply.

My suggestion is that the majority of content about farming belongs in a thematic section in History, but with current economic impact mentioned in the Economy section. Any volunteers to develop this content ?_Marshelec (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Marshelec I've added a paragraph about high country farming but need to integrate these other articles. The Sheep farming in New Zealand article needs a bit of work so I didn't want to link to that. Wainuiomartian (talk) 04:23, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Wainuiomartian Thanks, that's really great progress. It is good to see how the article is now shaping up to give broad but interesting coverage of topics specific to the South Island :)_Marshelec (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have just made a large edit of the first part of the History section, aiming for a "thematic" approach rather than a strict timeline, and avoiding bulleted lists. I started with content from an old edit [1], but have made significant changes and additions. I plan to continue with a similar approach unless feedback indicates otherwise. I will aim to action the previous suggestions from Nurg about South Island history topics that require coverage. It is quite a lot of work to comprehensively revise and expand the history section of this article, but I believe it will be worthwhile. Contributions from others are welcome as always._Marshelec (talk) Marshelec (talk) 03:49, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Marshelec are you still reworking the bullet points in the history section? I'm happy to work on this if you like.[[ Wainuiomartian (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Wainuiomartian I have not been able to get back on to this, because of the amount of time I am putting into work related to the Kaikōura project. So yes please, if you are keen - just go ahead. The content in the first phase of converting the bulleted list to prose is a composite of portions of how this part of the article appeared in June 2025 [2], plus some selected relevant South Island-related content from History of New Zealand and Timeline of New Zealand history, plus some additional topics that arose from digging around myself. If possible, I would like to see the history of the South Island presented in a way that is not simply a strict timeline (we have a separate list article for that anyway). Instead, I favour a thematic approach to particularly notable South Island-related history topics, perhaps "Gold rush period", "Early public works and infrastructure", "High country stations" etc. However, I am happy to leave it to you and other editors to develop as you see fit._Marshelec (talk) 04:33, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is the way I was thinking too. Wainuiomartian (talk) 07:07, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]