Jump to content

Category talk:Suburbs of Auckland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was don't move. The proposed is contrary to naming conventions and common sense. —Nightstallion (?) 07:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
  • The articles in Category:Auckland urban districts are a mix of [ District ]; [ District ], Auckland; and [ District ], New Zealand. I propose moving the "[ District ], New Zealand" articles to [ District ], [ City ] (i.e. Auckland, North Shore City, Waitakere City, Manukau City) :
a) To standardise them; and
b) Because I believe the correct nomenclature should be [ District ], [ City ], as the suburbs etc are more commonly referred to as a part of their city not as a part of New Zealand.
It may be sensible to also retain [ District ], [ New Zealand ] as a redirect.
I have brought this here because of the large number of moves requested, and because I think this needs to be open to discussion before the move takes place. The secondary question, I guess is whether, if the move were to take place, it include "City" at the end of Auckland, North Shore City, Waitakere, Manukau. I strongly believe that "North Shore" needs "City" at the end of it but am undecided as to the others.
As you can see there are already some redirects in place so these will have to be looked at.
  • Others in this category not mentioned here are or will be proposed for merging or deletion.

… Please share your opinion at Category Talk:Auckland urban districts. PageantUpdater 04:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey

[edit]
Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Oppose most of the above, for two reasons. First, there is no need to disambiguate unique names, so Remuera is fine without any suffix. Second, I would generally prefer to use ", Auckland" as the suffix, not the city name, unless there are two suburbs in Auckland with the same name. But I support changing suffixes from ", New Zealand" to ", Auckland", on the grounds that this is more common usage (even though somewhat against WP convention). -- Avenue 12:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my mind on the latter following Grutness's comments below. -- Avenue 08:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I guess there is really two questions going on here: should the names be standardized? and if so, how? This was really only a suggested way of doing it (and I started breaking up the cities at about the C's and forgot to go back, oops). Apologies for not finding the appropriate convention, I had a look myself but came up with nothing -- thanks for pointing me toward it. -- PageantUpdater 21:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  1. Strongest oppose. Give me just one reason why Auckland should have different naming guidelines to the rest of New Zealand. The NZ naming guidelines are perfectly straightforward - no modifier if the placename is unique worldwide (e.g., Te Atatu); New Zealand used as the modifier if the place name is not unique worldwide but is unique to New Zealand (e.g., Mount Roskill, New Zealand); provincial modifier only in those rare instances where two places with the same name are found in New Zealand (e.g., Lincoln, Auckland). City modifiers are not used, except for streets and buildings. Grutness...wha? 00:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment well I'm obviously on to a loser. I just think that all the names, whether they are unique or not, should use the same format, otherwise it looks messy. As someone who had never seen that category before, it looked bad and the first thing I thought was "these names are wrong". Who has ever referred to (e.g.) "Glen Innes, New Zealand" anyway? At the very least, these all need to be moved to "[ Place ], [ Auckland ]". It really doesn't look right to have some as [ Remuera ], some as [ Remuera, Auckland ] and some as [ Remuera, New Zealand ]. PageantUpdater 00:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Or perhaps we could agree on [ Place ], [ New Zealand ] for all of them. What I'm getting at is that they all need to be standardized (in a better way than they are now). PageantUpdater 01:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Neither of those are needed. The most obvious way of searching for an article would be just "Placename". That, currently, leads to either the page required or a disambiguation page - i.e., at most one more page away from the required place. Searching by city implies that the reader already knows a lot about a place; it requires far less knowledge for someone to know the country - and would be far more common for readers from outside New Zealand. if you do want to search via city name, well, that's what redirects are for. But actually having the articles at "Placename, city" leads to a two-tiered system whereby city places will have one set of modifiers in the name and rural places will have a different set (presumably either "Placename, province" or "Placename, district". Sticking with the country name or provincial name would allow for both urban and rural places to use the same types of modifier, and most NZers still tend to think of themselves in terms of the provincial names rather than anything else (someone from Manurewa would still regard themselves as an Aucklander primarily, in the same way that someone from Napier will identify strongly with Hawkes Bay). Grutness...wha? 05:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you've convinced me that more specific suffixes than the country will create a can of worms. -- Avenue 08:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Add any additional comments

Why do you suggest Te Atatu → Te Atatu, Waitakere but Albany, New Zealand → Albany, Auckland (not → Albany, North Shore City? This seems inconsistent. I assume the Takapuna entry is not what was intended. -- Avenue 13:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_Zealand_places#Naming_conventions seems relevant. -- Avenue 13:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally disagree with the policy (although I guess this probably isn't the place to be discussing it:
"no modifier if the placename is unique worldwide (e.g., Te Atatu); New Zealand used as the modifier if the place name is not unique worldwide but is unique to New Zealand (e.g., Mount Roskill, New Zealand); provincial modifier only in those rare instances where two places with the same name are found in New Zealand (e.g., Lincoln, Auckland). City modifiers are not used, except for streets and buildings. "
simply because (as an example), St Heliers is never referred to in general useage as "St Heliers, New Zealand" but as "St Heliers, Auckland" and "St Heliers, New Zealand" seems inorganic. I think that the modifier should be, in the first instance, "Auckland" (rather than "New Zealand"). I tried to make it clear that my move proposal was only one way to do it but that the overall aim (whether we used that style or not) was to make the naming look coherent. Despite what you say, I fail to see how having some with modifiers and some without does us any good > I support ALL having modifiers, and after reading the discussion I would support changing them all to DISTRICT, Auckland. I still strongly oppose the status quo. PageantUpdater 21:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Huh? I just read my move proposal again and I realised that I didn't actually make clear that that was only one way of doing things and that I would equally support District, Auckland. Apologies for the confusion (and the rest of my comments above still stand). PageantUpdater 21:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Protest

[edit]
  • I would like to strongly protest at the closing comment above: proposed is contrary to ... common sense. Contrary to naming conventions maybe, but in my opinion it is the status quo that is "contrary to common sense". What's contrary to your common sense is perfectly sensible to me. The term is totally subjective and should not be used in closing an argument. -- PageantUpdater 08:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree, something like "Devonport, Auckland" seems much more sensible to me than "Devonport, New Zealand". But I've lived in Auckland a long time, and people who aren't familiar with the area may find the more generic ending easier to locate. I accept there are good reasons for the naming conventions. On the other hand, that closing comment lacked tact at best. -- Avenue 00:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Avenue, when you say "people who aren't familiar with the area may find the more generic ending easier to locate" ... does the generic translate to "New Zealand" in your opinion or "Auckland". Not that I'm going to re-apply, but I feel I should have requested a move based on [ District ], Auckland. -- PageantUpdater 00:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
By "the more generic ending", I meant "New Zealand". Sorry that wasn't clear. And although I would have initially been more supportive of moving things to "..., Auckland", the arguments Grutness put forward have convinced me that this would not be a good idea, and I don't think making that request would have changed the final result. -- Avenue 03:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... it does seem to me perhaps this was archived after a fairly short period of time? Anyway... I'd probably have supported the move. Mathmo 00:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Papakura

[edit]

I strongly believe that Papakura (and it's suburbs) should be included under the auckland urban districts, perhaps even all of counties manukau as well? Mathmo

I agree about Papakura. However I think whatever is done here should match the definition given in our Auckland article. There has been some discussion on the talk page (Talk:Auckland#Definition.2Fboundaries_of_Auckland_conurbation) about what to do. -- Avenue 09:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since the definition in our Auckland article has been broadened without any complaint, I'll update the text here to match it. -- Avenue 09:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Suburbs_of_Auckland&oldid=1237698536"