Talk:Demographics of New Zealand

Latest comment: 3 months ago by Bmxbandit1 in topic Help for wikipedia noob
Good articleDemographics of New Zealand has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 25, 2011Good article nomineeListed

Vital statistics - citation problem

edit

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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply

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

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)Reply
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)Reply
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

Vital statistics since
Mid-year population estimate Population at 1 January Live births Deaths Annual natural population growth Crude birth rate (per 1,000) Crude death rate (per 1,000) Natural change (per 1,000) Total fertility rate
1921 29,623 11,474 18,149 3.08
1922 30,448 11,874 18,574 3.08
1923 29,148 12,239 16,909 2.96
1924 29,260 11,540 17,720 2.93
1925 29,869 11,844 18,025 2.90
1926 29,904 12,517 17,387 2.88
1927 1,440,050 1,429,700 29,278 12,600 16,678 20.3 8.8 11.6 2.79
1928 1,458,900 1,450,400 28,938 12,860 16,078 19.8 8.8 11.0 2.70
1929 1,476,750 1,467,400 28,859 13,220 15,639 19.5 9.0 10.6 2.64
1930 1,496,450 1,486,100 28,822 13,145 15,677 19.3 8.8 10.5 2.60
1931 1,514,800 1,506,800 28,867 13,062 15,805 19.1 8.6 10.4 2.56
1932 1,528,750 1,522,800 27,535 12,875 14,660 18.0 8.4 9.6 2.38
1933 1,540,900 1,534,700 27,204 12,862 14,342 17.7 8.3 9.3 2.31
1934 1,552,750 1,547,100 27,220 13,810 13,410 17.5 8.9 8.6 2.29
1935 1,564,050 1,558,400 27,150 13,664 13,486 17.4 8.7 8.6 2.25
1936 1,577,150 1,569,700 28,395 14,658 13,737 18.0 9.3 8.7 2.30
1937 1,593,200 1,584,600 29,896 15,215 14,681 18.8 9.6 9.2 2.39
1938 1,610,050 1,601,800 30,845 16,874 13,971 19.2 10.5 8.7 2.44
1939 1,629,950 1,618,300 32,872 15,933 16,939 20.2 9.8 10.4 2.56
1940 1,637,600 1,641,600 36,945 15,875 21,070 22.6 9.7 12.9 2.84
1941 1,632,400 1,633,600 39,170 17,047 22,123 24.0 10.4 13.6 2.93
1942 1,633,800 1,631,200 37,818 18,117 19,701 23.1 11.1 12.1 2.87
1943 1,639,200 1,636,400 34,684 17,122 17,562 21.2 10.4 10.7 2.61
1944 1,659,150 1,642,000 38,037 17,049 20,988 22.9 10.3 12.7 2.85
1945 1,702,050 1,676,300 41,534 17,686 23,848 24.4 10.4 14.0 3.10
1946 1,754,500 1,727,800 47,524 17,720 29,804 27.1 10.1 17.0 3.45
1947 1,799,350 1,781,200 49,698 17,442 32,256 27.6 9.7 17.9 3.63
1948 1,835,700 1,817,500 49,062 17,285 31,777 26.7 9.4 17.3 3.57
1949 1,873,000 1,853,900 48,841 17,578 31,263 26.1 9.4 16.7 3.53
1950 1,909,900 1,892,100 49,331 18,084 31,247 25.8 9.5 16.4 3.55
1951 1,949,100 1,927,700 49,806 18,836 30,970 25.6 9.7 15.9 3.60
1952 1,997,550 1,970,500 51,846 18,896 32,950 26.0 9.5 16.5 3.67
1953 2,049,650 2,024,600 51,888 18,354 33,534 25.3 9.0 16.4 3.65
1954 2,096,550 2,074,700 54,055 18,876 35,179 25.8 9.0 16.8 3.78
1955 2,141,600 2,118,400 55,596 19,225 36,371 26.0 9.0 17.0 3.88
1956 2,187,000 2,164,800 56,531 19,696 36,835 25.8 9.0 16.8 3.98
1957 2,236,000 2,209,200 58,425 20,862 37,563 26.1 9.3 16.8 4.03
1958 2,289,400 2,262,800 60,556 20,301 40,255 26.5 8.9 17.6 4.11
1959 2,337,850 2,316,000 61,798 21,128 40,670 26.4 9.0 17.4 4.18
1960 2,381,650 2,359,700 62,779 20,892 41,887 26.4 8.8 17.6 4.24
1961 2,432,450 2,403,600 65,390 21,782 43,608 26.9 9.0 17.9 4.31
1962 2,488,550 2,461,300 65,014 22,081 42,933 26.1 8.9 17.3 4.19
1963 2,541,350 2,515,800 64,527 22,416 42,111 25.4 8.8 16.6 4.05
1964 2,591,950 2,566,900 62,302 22,861 39,441 24.0 8.8 15.2 3.80
1965 2,640,400 2,617,000 60,047 22,976 37,071 22.7 8.7 14.0 3.54
1966 2,687,550 2,663,800 60,003 23,778 36,225 22.3 8.8 13.5 3.41
1967 2,728,150 2,711,300 61,022 23,007 38,015 22.4 8.4 13.9 3.35
1968 2,759,000 2,745,000 62,112 24,464 37,648 22.5 8.9 13.6 3.34
1969 2,788,500 2,773,000 62,360 24,161 38,199 22.4 8.7 13.7 3.28
1970 2,828,050 2,804,000 62,050 24,840 37,210 21.9 8.8 13.2 3.17
1971 2,875,300 2,852,100 64,460 24,309 40,151 22.4 8.5 14.0 3.18
1972 2,929,100 2,898,500 63,215 24,801 38,414 21.6 8.5 13.1 3.00
1973 2,992,300 2,959,700 60,727 25,312 35,415 20.3 8.5 11.8 2.76
1974 3,058,400 3,024,900 59,336 25,261 34,075 19.4 8.3 11.1 2.58
1975 3,117,800 3,091,900 56,639 25,114 31,525 18.2 8.1 10.1 2.37
1976 3,153,550 3,143,700 55,105 25,457 29,648 17.5 8.1 9.4 2.27
1977 3,164,900 3,163,400 54,179 25,961 28,218 17.1 8.2 8.9 2.21
1978 3,165,800 3,166,400 51,029 24,669 26,360 16.1 7.8 8.3 2.07
1979 3,164,550 3,165,200 52,279 25,340 26,939 16.5 8.0 8.5 2.12
1980 3,170,150 3,163,900 50,542 26,676 23,866 15.9 8.4 7.5 2.03
1981 3,185,450 3,176,400 50,794 25,150 25,644 15.9 7.9 8.1 2.01
1982 3,210,650 3,194,500 49,938 25,532 24,406 15.6 8.0 7.6 1.95
1983 3,245,800 3,226,800 50,474 25,991 24,483 15.6 8.0 7.5 1.92
1984 3,278,900 3,264,800 51,636 25,378 26,258 15.7 7.7 8.0 1.93
1985 3,298,050 3,293,000 51,798 27,480 24,318 15.7 8.3 7.4 1.93
1986 3,308,300 3,303,100 52,824 27,045 25,779 16.0 8.2 7.8 1.96
1987 3,327,800 3,313,500 55,254 27,419 27,835 16.6 8.2 8.4 2.03
1988 3,343,650 3,342,100 57,546 27,408 30,138 17.2 8.2 9.0 2.10
1989 3,357,500 3,345,200 58,091 27,042 31,049 17.3 8.1 9.2 2.12
1990 3,390,100 3,369,800 60,153 26,531 33,622 17.7 7.8 9.9 2.18
1991 3,463,200 3,410,400 59,911 26,389 33,522 17.3 7.6 9.7 2.09
1992 3,534,100 3,516,000 59,166 27,115 32,051 16.7 7.7 9.1 2.06
1993 3,575,050 3,552,200 58,782 27,100 31,682 16.4 7.6 8.9 2.04
1994 3,623,050 3,597,900 57,321 26,953 30,368 15.8 7.4 8.4 1.98
1995 3,677,450 3,648,200 57,671 27,813 29,858 15.7 7.6 8.1 1.98
1996 3,734,500 3,706,700 57,280 28,255 29,025 15.3 7.6 7.8 1.96
1997 3,782,450 3,762,300 57,604 27,471 30,133 15.2 7.3 8.0 1.96
1998 3,815,900 3,802,600 55,349 26,206 29,143 14.5 6.9 7.6 1.89
1999 3,840,200 3,829,200 57,053 28,122 28,931 14.9 7.3 7.5 1.97
2000 3,862,100 3,851,200 56,605 26,660 29,945 14.7 6.9 7.8 1.98
2001 3,894,600 3,873,000 55,799 27,825 27,974 14.3 7.1 7.2 1.97
2002 3,952,850 3,916,200 54,021 28,065 25,956 13.7 7.1 6.6 1.89
2003 4,025,550 3,989,500 56,134 28,010 28,124 13.9 7.0 7.0 1.93
2004 4,087,950 4,061,600 58,073 28,419 29,654 14.2 7.0 7.3 1.98
2005 4,137,650 4,114,300 57,745 27,034 30,711 14.0 6.5 7.4 1.97
2006 4,186,200 4,161,000 59,193 28,245 30,948 14.1 6.7 7.4 2.01
2007 4,232,000 4,211,400 64,044 28,522 35,522 15.1 6.7 8.4 2.17
2008 4,272,100 4,252,600 64,343 29,188 35,155 15.1 6.8 8.2 2.18
2009 4,319,400 4,291,600 62,543 28,964 33,579 14.5 6.7 7.8 2.12
2010 4,370,350 4,347,200 63,897 28,438 35,459 14.6 6.5 8.1 2.15
2011 4,393,500
Data in Births and deaths: Year ended December 2017


Vital statistics since 2001
Average population Live births Deaths Natural change Crude birth rate (per 1,000) Crude death rate (per 1,000) Natural change (per 1,000) Total fertility rate
2001 3,886,700 55,800 27,825 27,972 14.36 7.16 7.20 1.97
2002 3,951,200 54,021 28,065 25,956 13.67 7.10 6.57 1.89
2003 4,027,700 56,136 28,011 28,125 13.94 6.95 6.99 1.93
2004 4,088,700 58,074 28,419 29,655 14.20 6.95 7.25 1.98
2005 4,136,000 57,744 27,033 30,711 13.96 6.54 7.42 1.97
2006 4,185,300 59,193 28,245 30,948 14.14 6.75 7.39 2.01
2007 4,226,200 64,044 28,521 35,520 15.15 6.75 8.40 2.18
2008 4,262,000 64,341 29,187 35,154 15.10 6.85 8.25 2.19
2009 4,304,900 62,541 28,965 33,579 14.53 6.73 7.80 2.13
2010 4,353,000 63,897 28,437 35,457 14.68 6.53 8.15 2.17
2011 4,386,300 61,404 30,081 31,320 14.00 6.86 7.14 2.09
2012 4,410,700 61,179 30,099 31,080 13.87 6.82 7.05 2.10
2013 4,446,700 58,719 29,568 29,148 13.20 6.65 6.55 2.01
2014 4,513,200 57,243 31,062 26,181 12.68 6.88 5.80 1.92
2015 4,599,300 61,038 31,608 29,430 13.27 6.87 6.40 1.99
2016 4,696,500 59,430 31,179 28,251 12.65 6.64 6.01 1.87
2017 4,796,000 59,610 33,339 26,268 12.43 6.95 5.48 1.81

@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)Reply

@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)Reply

Ethnic %

edit

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

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

Vital Statistics

edit

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)Reply

No fear, I have fixed this problem. Tweedle (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
WP:NOTSTATS applies even on this page. At least collapse it. Aircorn (talk) 05:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply

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

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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply

Annual percentage growth rate graph is very wrong

edit

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)Reply

Typical Kiwi

edit

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)Reply

Help for wikipedia noob

edit

Tried to change the migration statistics table, and somehow shifted where it was located in the article. Bmxbandit1 (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Wikipedia:Teahouse and the Help Center might be good places for assistance. Alexeyevitch(talk) 00:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Cheers :) Bmxbandit1 (talk) 00:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply