Jump to content

Talk:Auckland/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Five regions of auckland

Was very surprised I couldn't find any mentions of the five distinctive regions of auckland: central, west, north, south and east. They each have their distinctive flavour and don't match up with any of the formal "cities" or whatever that make up auckland. This how people will commonly refer to where they came from, I fairly equally would say I come from either south auckland or manukau.Likewise those out east/west etc.. say the same. Mathmo Talk 04:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that they ARE informal, and thus badly suited for an encyclopedia. There is some reference to them in the jafa article, which we might at some point rename 'Auckland stereotypes' ;-) MadMaxDog 05:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hibiscus Coast

Avenue, is Hibiscus Coast really considered part of the Auckland *Urban* area??? Seems a bit "far out"? MadMaxDog 02:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, at least according to Statistics NZ's 2001 Urban Area classification. See my comments above (under Talk:Auckland#Definition.2Fboundaries_of_Auckland_conurbation) for more details. -- Avenue 05:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thats fine. I sort of thought you would know what you were doing. It's just interesting that Auckland urban sprawl is also advancing in official terms ;-) MadMaxDog 05:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm certainly not infallible, so it's good to query my edits if they seem odd. And I'm not claiming that the map is now perfect; the 2001 classification said that Kumeu should be included and Waiheke excluded, for instance. I decided I'd wait and see what the 2006 version says about those parts, before changing them. But the Hibiscus Coast was a big enough omission that I felt I should do something about that. -- Avenue 10:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
So is Waiheke included now? Map shows part in grey (why only the central part, there are a few houses in the west too, aren't there?) and it certainly feels like an Auckland suburb in some ways. MadMaxDog 10:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Based on the list of 2006 urban areas available from Statistics NZ here, I suspect that the definition hasn't changed much since 2001. In particular, it sounds as though all of Waiheke Island is still classed as a separate minor urban area (like Waiuku, Helensville and Warkworth), and that Pukekohe is still classed as a secondary urban area which is also separate from the Auckland urban area. If noone objects, I'll remove the grey shading from Waiheke Island in the map, but I'd rather not change Kumeu until 2006 urban area definitions in terms of area units are freely available from Statistics NZ. -- Avenue 12:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Takanini

Takanini is actually still in Auckland, that's Auckland Region not Auckland City, and is located within the boundaries of the Auckland metropolitan area. Yes it is in the Papakura District and what did you mean by "thieving aucklanders"??! People living in Papakura are aucklanders as well. The address you saw on the fonterra website is correct: Takanini, Auckland, New Zealand. --HannahSamuels 22:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Climate

just wondering: no info on auckland's weather. Rain/Sunshine hours/average temperatures —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.155.218.151 (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Will see about it - I think there was something in a comparision site I saw once. MadMaxDog 10:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Not sure exactly what MadMaxDog is asking in his edit summary, but the present version is inaccurate - gadfium's version was better in that Auckland is not subtropical - its warm temperate, the temperatures are too low for subtropical. The bit about 20 degree nights is not up to scratch. In general, climate descriptions need to come from authoritative meteorological sources, not the views of the general public or of tourism-related or city-promotion related sites, especially as NZers tend to use the term 'subtropical' very loosely, as the Brits do. (Fiji's tourism industry would suffer if Auckland really was subtropical). Kahuroa 19:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Look at the edits closely, Kahuroa. The edit as of Gadfium was exactly what I was referring to - I did not change it, I only repaired the web cite in the interim until we decided on a revert, rephrase or keep. I have no strong opinion on this, so somebody with more knowledge would better ascertain this. MadMaxDog 07:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, all I was saying in the above was that I think Gadfium's version is better, and why... sorry if that's not what it sounded like Kahuroa 07:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Then go ahead and revert it. I just had done so much reverting recently that I was getting suspicious at myself doing it too quickly (reverting just because I didn't like change in my favorite articles?) MadMaxDog 09:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Done, with minor change for clarity re coastal location. Kahuroa 10:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"Auckland Urban Area"

Noticed we have a map titled that, though also another typical way to describe the auckland region is what the Auckland Regional Council covers. So a map such as the one here could be used? Mathmo Talk 23:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The Auckland Region is much bigger than the Auckland urban area (as defined by Statistics NZ). Here is a map of the region with the urban area highlighted in red. -- Avenue 00:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Picture

The Map of Auckland as shown on the article is incorrect. This map shows just Auckland City and not the whole region. Could somebody please edit it, and color the whole region red. ?? --HannahSamuels 07:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is about the Auckland metropolitan area, and not the Auckland Region. Having said that, I agree that the area shown in our map does not extend far enough, and it would be good to correct it. An official map is available from Statistics NZ. -- Avenue 08:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Housing

It may be a bit outdated to say that the standard section in Auckland is 1000 metres squared.

I totally agree, so I changed it to read that this WAS traditionally the norm, but then left the bit about how infill housing has changed this. Jimmynzboy (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Maori name

Hi. I have re-added the Maori name to the infobox, because Maori is an official language of New Zealand that is equal in status to English, and Maori placenames are also officially-recognised (by New Zealand Post, for example). Infoboxes conventionally contain all official names of a place, not only English variants. For example, the country infobox of New Zealand also contains "Aotearoa", and the country infobox of Belgium also includes the German name. Including the Maori name here does not mean that "Tāmaki-makau-rau" is officially recognised in English, nor does it mean that the official name of the town is "Auckland Tāmaki-makau-rau" as User:MadMaxDog stated in his or her edit summary. A similar implementation can be found at Welsh and Scottish localities in the UK - see Wrexham and Aberdeen. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 08:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be good if we could all discuss this at Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board instead of here, as it covers more than just one city. Thanks. MadMaxDog 08:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Sister cities

Didn't we have a twinned with section at some point? I am confused. MadMaxDog 11:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Were you thinking of Auckland_City#Sister_Cities? -- Avenue 15:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Whoops. Of course - "Auckland" is NOT a city. (*Wiping egg from his face*). MadMaxDog 12:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

POV

I'm removed a lot of POV which seems to have plagued this article particularly by someone who is so critical of the city's public transport, air pollution and the city's planning policies. this is an encyclopaedia not a place for personally motivated complaints about the city. Michellecrisp 07:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Future growth should not be part of history. Michellecrisp 08:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Michellecrisp, I think its sad that mentioning some of the most fought over planning policies / future issues of this city lets you fall into the trap of "Oh, he must hate this city!" thinking. If anything, I am guilty of overemphasizing stuff because I like this city very much, and want it to change. But I'm open to criticism, as I have hopefully shown.MadMaxDog 09:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that 'Future' and 'History' clash somewhat. However, there is a clear continuum in the section, and I am loath to change that - for a reader, the connection from past (development) to present to future development of the city surely makes most sense in that order, in one section. MadMaxDog 09:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the changes. Article is more NPOV now. no I don't think it's "I hate this city" syndrome just that personal opinion was entering in. this is an encyclopaedia. I don't have a problem with significant issues being presented as long as it conforms to NPOV. as they say there's usually 2 sides to a story. Michellecrisp 11:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Rough guide

Recently, user:markrushmore added a link to the Auckland Rough Guide website to this article, I removed it. Said user then placed the below messsage on my talk page. I am copying it here, with the intention of other people maybe weighing in on it as well?

QUOTE

Hello,

I see that you recently deleted the link that I only recently added. I believe that it is a legitimate link for the following reasons:

1. Many other places (cities and countries) have links referring them to travel guides which are useful for that area, as they contain information regarding that area which is not included in the article. Hence there should be no reason why my link to the Rough Guides website should be any different. Unlike many others, the Rough Guides website does not have extensive advertising on it, but rather, it provides a large degree of useful travel information.

2. As you are probably aware WikiTravel has a number of external links referring people to their own travel guide. In the Auckland example, I added an external link as Wikitravel has failed to do so for this location. Surely if adding external links can be done to a series of other locations such as New York by Wikitravel, it should not be restricted for less well known places?

3. The fact that there are links to Wikitravel would suggest that information regarding travel is considered to be appropriate for the Wikipedia website.

I fully understand that there is a need to prevent people from merely advertising on Wikipedia, as this is not it's purpose. However, I hope you will agree with me that in this example, it is not a matter of advertising, but of providing a highly important link that is legitimate as it has a basis in precedent.

Kind regards,

Markrushmore 15:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)markrushmoreMarkrushmore 15:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Unquote
Markus, I still disagree with you - if you absolutely want to, reintroduce the link - however, I am sure that over the long or short of it, it will be removed again by others. Rough Guides sell their guides. Their website content (which, if you look closely, is not that extensive on Auckland at all, 1-2 pages), is 90% already in the article. I do not agree with your advertisement argument either - their site is plastered with... ads for the rough guides they are selling!
We would be hyprocrites in allowing Rough Guide links, when at the same time, we delete small websites trying to sell photo prints of commercial photographers - those too, might be argued to have benefit to the users. In fact the photo galleries I am thinking of (and which I deleted when they were spammed all over South Island articles) contained lots of good photos, that were interesting to look at, even in smaller resolution. Didn't matter.
Linking to the wikitravel does not mean anything, because Wikitravel is a wiki - in other words, a cooperative, non-commercial link. Finally, you may check the recent edits - as it turns out, I could actually use the Rough Guide link you gave - it is now in the standard references, as a source for the 'largest Polynesian city in the world' claim. If you feel that other material in the Rough Guide should be in the article, feel free to add and reference it via the standard ref link already there. But I am quite serious about it not having any standing in the external links section. Cheers MadMaxDog 22:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I would add that if we link to Rough Guide, we should also link to every other travel guide site, and that would rapidly overwhelm the article. The solution is for sites to add themselves to DMOZ (which I have no connection to), and for Wikipedia to include a DMOZ link (however, DMOZ seems to be down at the moment).-gadfium 01:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear all,

Thank you for your response, that certainly clears things up a bit for me with regards to how Wikipedia works. I will look into areas where references or links would be more appropriate.

Thanks once again,

Markrushmore 08:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)markrushmoreMarkrushmore 08:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Climate chart

Auckland
Climate chart (explanation)
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
 
 
75
 
 
23
15
 
 
65
 
 
24
16
 
 
94
 
 
22
15
 
 
105
 
 
20
12
 
 
103
 
 
17
10
 
 
139
 
 
15
8
 
 
146
 
 
15
7
 
 
121
 
 
15
8
 
 
116
 
 
16
9
 
 
91
 
 
18
11
 
 
93
 
 
20
12
 
 
91
 
 
22
14
█ Average max. and min. temperatures in °C
█ Precipitation totals in mm
Source: Niwa Science climate data
Imperial conversion
JFMAMJJASOND
 
 
3
 
 
73
59
 
 
2.6
 
 
75
61
 
 
3.7
 
 
72
59
 
 
4.1
 
 
68
54
 
 
4.1
 
 
63
50
 
 
5.5
 
 
59
46
 
 
5.7
 
 
59
45
 
 
4.8
 
 
59
46
 
 
4.6
 
 
61
48
 
 
3.6
 
 
64
52
 
 
3.7
 
 
68
54
 
 
3.6
 
 
72
57
█ Average max. and min. temperatures in °F
█ Precipitation totals in inches

I see someone has added a custom climate table to the article. Good work, but there are already two templates to portray this more graphically: {{Infobox Weather}} and {{Climate chart}}. They don't provide for the number of rain days, however, and the latter gives only metric measurements and doesn't include the annual measurements.

Here's the data presented first as a climate chart, then as Infobox weather. I'm putting them on the talk page rather than in the article for discussion on which format is preferable before changing the article.

I prefer the climate chart, but the template is currently up for deletion, and some people have noted accessibility issues with it. I've used whole numbers in the Climate chart because I think the chart looks better that way, but the template can accept decimals.

The infobox weather could be collapsed down to fewer lines by placing both metric and imperial measurements on the same line by just changing one parameter, but this would make it too wide for most screens unless we reduced the number of decimal places shown. See the talk page of the Infobox weather template for discussions about adding meaningful colours to such templates.-gadfium 20:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Climate data for Auckland
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year
Mean daily maximum °C 23.3 23.7 22.4 20.0 17.4 15.2 14.5 15.0 16.2 17.8 19.6 21.6 18.9
Mean daily minimum °C 15.3 15.8 14.6 12.3 10.0 8.0 7.1 7.6 8.9 10.5 12.1 13.9 11.3
Average precipitation mm 75 65 94 105 103 139 146 121 116 91 93 91 1,240
Mean daily maximum °F 73.9 74.7 72.3 68.0 63.3 59.4 58.1 59.0 61.2 64.1 67.3 70.9 66.0
Mean daily minimum °F 59.6 60.5 58.3 54.2 50.0 46.4 44.8 45.7 48.0 50.9 53.8 57.0 52.4
Average precipitation inches 2.95 2.56 3.70 4.13 4.06 5.47 5.75 4.76 4.57 3.58 3.66 3.58 48.82
Source: [1]
  1. ^ "Climate Data and Activities". NIWA Science. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |accessyear= and |accessmonthday= (help)
Hey Gadfium, I added that table for a couple of reasons, the previous one didn't do Auckland justice and I was sick of people saying that the weather in London is the same as NZ (maybe only Invercargill...) Anyway I think that alternative that you have put here in the discussion page looks great and should be added. Would be good if rain days could still be kept somewhere within the article. I notice this is the format that London uses for climate and if the old format is being phased out then may as well stay ahead of the curve. Cheers Homesick kiwi 08:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the above is a bit too strong in terms of all the heavy, dominant colours used. Jumps at you a little too much. Also, some of the darker colours make the text hard to read... Ingolfson 11:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

I just switched Avenue's suggestion for the infobox picture back into the main, and replaced it with another, as I felt that the Westhaven picture was well-composed - but for an infobox picture (which is very small as well!) it was too filled with other stuff to serve well.

I have added another picture, but I am aware that it may look a bit brooding - again, the small size makes it look worse. I'd suggest Image:Aukland night.jpg if it wasn't already in the article (what do people think about a night shot?) or Image:Aucklandqueenmary2.jpg if people think it should be replaced. Or we just wait for a sunny day... Ingolfson 11:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that one does seem a bit dark. I've replaced it with the Queen Mary one. -- Avenue 14:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I actually prefer the night one, it gives it a nice effect, as seen in the Dubai article, I think the current photo is good but the night shot is better suited, jus an opinion. (♠Taifarious1♠) 02:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Early Māori and Europeans

I took out the reference to 'introduced plagues' while editing this section - mainly because I couldn't think of a way to rephrase it. Would help if the diseases involved were named from some source, since 'introduced plagues' is strange wording and 'diseases' is not much better - leaves too many questions, whereas if we knew the exact disease(s) in these plagues it might help. Probably don't need to mention this anyway in an article like Auckland?? Kahuroa 23:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This article does not meet the Good Article criteria, and will not be listed at the present time. I don't see how it even can be called "A-class", either. There is much work to be done, and the article is largely incomplete. At best, I'd rate it at a mid "B-class", and have removed the "A-class" rankings on the article, as it is a joke to grade this as an "A" (no offense here, but I'm just being honest). I noticed also that the article was subsequently nominated for WP:FAC as well, and listed for peer review. It's not appropriate to nominate for both GA & FA at the same time, as they are two separate processes, with FA being the "best of the best" and GA meaning that it meets some basic standards of an encyclopedia article and has "good" information. Furthermore, it's useless to nominate for both simultaneously because once an article achieves FA status, it's GA status is removed. Most articles usually are not dually-nominated for either FA & PR, or GA & PR, although this is less of an issue because PR does not assign a status to it. But be advised that the PR system in its current state is not working very well, and suffers from a general lack of reviewers. You'll be lucky to receive more than about 1 or 2 comments on the article, and may end up only receiving the automated review, which is next to worthless. But feel free to keep it listed there anyways,... who knows.

I'll try and address most of the issues below, based on the Good Article criteria. So this is a GA Review; although it should also be noted that I obviously do not believe the article meets the Featured Article criteria (which are similar, but far more stringent); so I predict it will fail FAC.

Referencing is insufficient, and is very scarce in sections, with some sections not having any references at all, and there is some important data with no citations at all. There's also quite a few lists in the article as well, which should be converted to prose. The sports section looks like just a collection of random facts rather than a good, well-written section describe sports in the city, and how they relate to the population.

The history section is very short, and is missing a lot of information. It's only got 5 references, with much unsourced. The future growth section should be largely reduced to one or two sentences, and combined with the history section. It is generally advised that articles avoid future population speculation, because they can be very unreliable. An entire section dedicated to this is asking for unfamiliar editors to add to this and make wildly speculative statements.

Instead of two subsections in 'geography' covering 'volcanoes' and 'harbours and gulf', combine this into one section called 'geology', as it's all related to the natural features of the area. The separate subsections are unnecessary. The 'climate' section is good, but absent is information on the 'neighborhoods' or 'cityscape' (major parts of town, how are streets organized, where are the residential, industrial, and commercial parts of town, etc).

The economy section is insufficient. It seems overly broad, beginning with, "Most major international corporations have an Auckland office, as the city is seen as the economic capital of the nation." Which corporations? We should be more specific. Don't list them, but some should be mentioned. A statement like, "The most expensive office space is around..." really doesn't tell much about the actual economy, and is kind of unnecessarily glowing and flowery. Flowery language should generally be avoided.

The last two paragraphs of the education section are just lists in disguise as prose, and "being amongst the most famous" is kind of flowery language again. Editors should really go through the whole article in better detail, looking for more flowerly language. More information on public school systems and private schools, as well as some of the more notable and reputable areas of research for some of the higher education institutions, should be provided.

More flowery language can be seen here: "Positive aspects of Auckland life are its mild climate, plentiful employment and educational opportunities,..." I would also recommend changing the 'lifestyle' to a 'culture' sections. The subsection entitled 'culture' in the 'people' section really deals more with demographics, and should be titled as such (which conforms to the title of most sections in wikipedia articles). Recommend eliminating the 'people' title and calling the section just 'demographics' - religion can become a small subsection under this.

I'm not getting the purpose of the 'housing' section. It seems like it would be better covered as a subsection under geography, and more information should be added regarding all the neighborhoods in the city. It's largely incomplete, though.

The transportation section is confusingly written with multiple third & fourth level headings that are making it look very fragmented and information doesn't tie well to the overall section very well.

The famous sites section is just two lists of some tourist attractions. I would recommend eliminating the section entirely and adding it to the 'culture' section, as cultural attractions. What about adding information on any annual cultural events or fairs in the city?

Lots of information is missing. There is nothing in the article about the city government (government section). There is nothing in the article about local media (newspapers, television, radio stations; media section).

All of the images meet the GA criteria, except that the coat of arms image in the infobox does not have a fair use rationale.

A minor issue is the formatting of the references; they are mainly just external links. Full citation information should be included here (author, title, publisher, date of publication, date of URL retrieval). This is so that, if the URL ever becomes a '404 not found', the reference can still be used to track down & verify the source and do additional research on the article. Please see WP:CITE for more information on formatting references and inline citations in articles.

I would strongly recommend looking at some of the current FA & GA articles in WikiProject Cities as examples. There are also two templates for city articles in that wikiproject as well; although they are geared towards US cities and UK cities, they are likely to still contain good information on improving any city article, and have a good system for the organization of content into sections and/or subsections (though too many subsections are discouraged).

Also, take a look at the manual of style and WP:LEAD, for information on style and the intro section.

I think I've covered the major issues with the article. It may not be complete, but it should be good to get editors started at improving the article up to GA status. Hope this helps! Cheers! Dr. Cash 05:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The nominator was not one of the regular editors here, and simply did a hit-and-run nomination. That said, thanks for 'friendly criticism' the article (oh, sorry, you were just being honest). Shows a lot about what I consider broken with the rating process (fair cup re FA, though THAT process certainly forces articles into a rather dry mold, if you object to simple phrasings like the one you mentioned even for GA). Ingolfson 15:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
In other words, I'd rather keep some of the 'flowery language' (about which I contest both the definition and the specific cases mentioned) and keep sections like on growth (which is a major public issue) than chase the approval of a small group of reviewers. Ingolfson 15:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Climate

The extreme temperatures cited were wrong. Highest temperature is in fact 34.4C at Albert Park and lowest -0.6C. (Font: New Zealand meterological Service,). Also no snow fell at Auckland centre in 1939, just in its suburbs and only for less than a hour wthout any accumulation to the ground. It is worth to point it out otherwise readers may be mislead. Thanks. Maximiliano Herrera. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.9.138.166 (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The source cited was [1], which gives the extreme temperatures as 30.5 and -2.5 degrees. We cannot accept new figures with only a vague source as you give above.-gadfium 22:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
REPLY TO GADFIUM. Up to you, if you want to give wrong data so ridicolous that even a 2 years old child will laught at it, up to you. -2.5C and 30.5C ARE WRONG. vague sources ?? I don t think so, OFFICIAL SOURCES DIRECT FROM THE OBSERVATORY I have the whole database of temperature of Auckland since the european settlement up today day by day, so keep your ignorance and what a pity you spread your ignorance and arrogance to all wiki users who deserve right information not false and ridicolous ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.9.186.190 (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the name

Where is the explanation as to why the city is named "Auckland"!!?? This is key information and I find it astonishing that it is not included in such a well developed article. Kotare (talk) 03:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The information you seek is covered in the article History of Auckland. The origin of the name is not particularly interesting, but feel free to add it to this article if you wish.-gadfium 09:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
There is also some inconclusive discussion of the derivation of "Auckland" in the Bishop Auckland article. (The title of Baron Auckland actually refers to the nearby village of West Auckland.) -- Avenue (talk) 10:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Nicknames

Anybody agree to adding "Queen City" to the list of nicknames in the infobox? It's still used frequently in news media, so I reckon it should be added. Opinions? Loud noises (talk) 10:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sitting on the fence on this one. I've heard it, but then I have done a lot of research on Auckland. Care to provide a few examples? Ingolfson (talk) 10:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with it being added, perhaps as '(formerly "Queen City")'. We do refer to it in our article on Queen Street.-gadfium 19:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I know, but I'd prefer current examples. I'd be somewhat opposed to putting a FORMER nickname into the infobox. Article space, sure. But not the box. So we should check whether its really still being used. Ingolfson (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
See NZ Herald for recent examples of its use. It is definitely a current, though not an official, nickname. Loud noises (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
"Queen City Rocker" was a 1986 movie derived from the name. It crops up over now and then - SimonLyall (talk) 09:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, okay, convinced me. Its fair enough to mention it. I've added it with a little explanation.Ingolfson (talk) 09:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sport

Just a quick note, shouldnt there be some mention of the 2 instances that Auckland hosted the commonwealth games in the past? It seems pretty important to the sport and even history of Auckland. Taifarious1 05:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, should certainly be added to History of Auckland. Maybe a single line in the "Sport" section" too.-gadfium 06:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

New Infobox pic?

Resolved

Taifarious1 05:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to propose a new picture for the Infobox. The current one, im sorry to say, is rather boring, I have made 2 possible candidates modelled on the New York City, Chicago and the one I have created for the Los Angeles articles. The proposed photographs are below. Please leave a comment on any changes etc.

Thanks, Taifarious1 09:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC) - PS, see Las Vegas and San Francisco for other montages i've created for city articles.

They look better than what is there now, I'd go for the second as it has a bit of nature rather than just another building. - SimonLyall (talk) 08:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
This discussion ahs been open for a week now, so is there any opposition to a change over tomorrow (to the second one since that has got the most/only support :D)? Taifarious1 05:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Go for it.-gadfium 05:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • first
    first
  • second
    second

The image File:Commonwealth Games Federation Logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved - image was removed from {{Commonwealth Games Host Cities}}. Franamax (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Population

The population has been restored to the estimate supplied by the template for several reasons:

  1. It is the latest data, the census number can be up to five years old
  2. Statistics New Zealand states the census is a net undercount - the population clock on their website uses the estimated resident population
  3. It is referenced, directly to the number for anyone to check (free Excel viewer may be needed)
  4. The template allows a simple mass update to population data for the articles it's used in, saving a lot of work

XLerate (talk) 01:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Not the same size as London

The article says that Auckland is roughly the same size as London. However, Auckland is 420 square miles compared to London at just under 660 square miles. That means that Auckland is less than 2/3rd the size of London, so to say they're roughly the same size is misleading. Canuck85 (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree, and since I find no comparison to London in the references (and sourcing other sources in different articles is a no-no anyway), I've reworded. I haven't looked for new sources, so I'm taking the original author on trust that Auckland is a fairly spread-out city using mostly single-family housing. Also I substituted "lot" for "section" size, but that could be cultural bias. Diff Still needs RS of course. Franamax (talk) 02:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Old Government House

On this page it says that Old Government House, now part of the University of Auckland, is where New Zealand's Parliament met until the Capital moved to Wellington. However, the Parliament website suggests otherwise: http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/AboutParl/HstBldgs/History/Auckland/b/f/f/bfff12414f0a4c8f95ed830798619408.htm

As well, my understanding is that Old Government House is where the Governor (and later Governor-General) used to live when in Auckland (prior to the gifting of Government House Auckland in Mt Eden in the 1960s). See here: http://www.gg.govt.nz/government-house/earlier

I don't have a wiki login, so can someone else update/correct/clarify this?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.22.141 (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. We have an article Old Government House, Auckland, which appears to be correct (although it's debatable whether it's the second or third Government House in Auckland - however the article tries to gets around this by saying the "second Government House built in Auckland", and the rental property was not built as a government house). You can edit the Auckland article yourself without logging in, but if you'd rather not do that, can you suggest a change of wording here?-gadfium 23:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
i think the site is where the old high court building is, where symonds st meets anzac ave. Seems i recall seeing a plaque there Kahuroa (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Education

would like to see more related to this in the article, like universities. --Billymac00 04:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

See Category:Education in Auckland.-gadfium 05:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It's very hard to have a list of the top few schools in Auckland. Until last night, we listed Auckland Grammar and Auckland Girls Grammar, then someone changed the latter to Epsom Girls Grammar, and Auckland Girls was readded.

I have little doubt that Auckland Grammar and Epsom Girls Grammar have a place on any list, but I don't think Auckland Girls Grammar is in quite the same league. There are several other schools which should probably be included, but we have no objective criteria for which schools belong.

Can anyone suggest a reliable external source which provides a list of the top secondary schools in Auckland that we can quote? If not, I suggest all schools be removed from this article.

There is a similar problem with the following paragraph about tertiary providers, except that there are considerably fewer general tertiary education providers to list and most of them have already been added.-gadfium 19:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite convinced that one to-and-fro edit is a sign of a major problem. Why not leave it as is, and see if it really becomes one? MadMaxDog
Metro did a cover story on top schools in Auckland a few months ago (cover had schoolkid models on front), there is some dispute on their methodology. I get the impression it's hard to compare schools due to some doing NCEA and other not, and various different deciles and private vs public. - SimonLyall 10:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
To be honest I don't understand why we need to have such a list anyway. Perhaps listing the largest might be better? Which (i think, need confirmation) are Avondale, Rangitoto, Mount Roskill and Auckland Grammar. Other than that, i say remove it.Jimmynzboy (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

A couple of years later, and there is still occasional to-and-fro with people adding schools to the list. I have yet to see anyone politely suggest the addition of a school, as is requested in an html comment in the section. I repeat my suggestion that we remove the list of schools. It could be readded in the form "[reliable source] listed the top schools in Auckland as ... on [date]" if anyone wants to dig up such a source. The Metro magazine article referred to above is perhaps now to old, but it might have updated the list.-gadfium 19:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

well the metro article has people disputing their methodology (they seem to be doing it every year). I think a removal of this list might be the best solution for now. - SimonLyall (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the lists. I left the three largest high schools, and the largest Catholic school, as the criteria for inclusion are clear and can be examined at the TKI website.-gadfium 05:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The picture in this section is of foellinger auditorium, which is nowhere near Auckland at all: It's in Urbana, Illinois.

I've removed the incorrect picture. The clock tower picture was correct.-gadfium 19:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Sunshine hours

I have added sunshine hours, didn't think anyone would mind too much? Same source as the rest of the climate data. Kahuroa (talk) 10:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Article for the Auckland super city

What to do with certain Auckland articles after 1 November 2010 when the "super city" comes into being and certain existing authorities cease and become historic entities. At present we have articles:

The main outcome we need is an article for the area governed by the new Auckland Council. The logical name for this article would be simply "Auckland". At present the article by the name "Auckland" covers only the metropolitan area and not the rural areas.

I suggest that the scope of the Auckland article be expanded to include the rural areas, and that the Auckland Region article be merged into it. The Auckland Regional Council article would remain as a record of the so-named "Auckland Region".

Other ideas? Nurg (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest the current Auckland City be renamed Auckland (city) or, to be more accurate but more cumbersome, something like Auckland City (1871 - 2010). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 01:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Personally I think the Auckland article should continue to be about the metropolitan area, not the unitary authority that will contain and govern it, because I believe that is its most common meaning. We already have an article on the new Auckland Council, and I think the Auckland Region article provides a sensible geographical complement to that. We could keep our Auckland City and Auckland City Council articles to cover historical matters (as well as Manukau City, Rodney District, etc), but this material might be better merged into our list of former territorial authorities in New Zealand. I think the Auckland Regional Council article should be merged into the Auckland Council article, with a historical section covering both the ARA and the ARC. This would be similar to the ARA's current treatment within the Auckland Regional Council article. --Avenue (talk) 03:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
To clarify the distinction, I don't think that many of the outlying towns and rural areas within the new Auckland Region are included in the common meaning of "Auckland" (e.g. Wellsford, the Awhitu Peninsula), and nor is Great Barrier Island. --Avenue (talk) 10:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I would have Auckland covering the metropolitan area, Auckland region covering the entire council area (in the same scope as Auckland), and Auckland Council covering the government side - like London, Greater London, and Greater London Authority - similar to Avenue's suggestion. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 02:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. So we would rename Auckland Region to Auckland region. "Auckland region" matches the capitalisation used in the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Act 2009 and "Auckland Region" ceases to exist on 1 Nov. And Auckland continues to cover the metropolitan area. Nurg (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The Auckland City article had not been updated, so I've leapt in changing the tense from present to past in the introduction. Jlittlenz (talk) 11:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

And I've finally merged the Auckland Regional Council article into Auckland Council. --Avenue (talk) 00:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Avenue, the ARC merge is in my opinion not a particularly desirable move at all - and an actual merge is not covered in the discussion above either. The history of Auckland Regional Council is sufficiently large and long to deserve it's own article. We are already getting an Auckland Council article that is so extremely long we will have to start looking at splitting it off into subsections soon! So I have reversed the merge insofar as restoring the ARC stand-alone article, and left a summary of the ARC only in place at the Auckland Council article. Cheers, Ingolfson (talk) 10:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
The merge was covered explicitly in my first post in this section. Quote: "I think the Auckland Regional Council article should be merged into the Auckland Council article, with a historical section covering both the ARA and the ARC. This would be similar to the ARA's current treatment within the Auckland Regional Council article." Okay, no one responded specifically to that point, but I don't see why you say it wasn't covered.
Yes, the Auckland Council article does seem a bit long. Most of its bulk is in the list of local board members and the coverage of controversies around its establishment (especially CCOs). I think these should be split off. The CCO controversies especially seem to get undue weight, considering we don't even cover important issues like the loss of the Hunua dams to the Waikato Region. I also think that following your merge reversal, the History section is now too myopic, as it covers nothing before 1989. No offence to the ARC, but I think it presided over more an ongoing evolution of what went before than a revolution, and some coverage of earlier history is necessary to explain the current Auckland Council's assets. Anyway, perhaps we should discuss all these details at Talk:Auckland Council, instead of here.
I think a central discussion what we do for our articles on the former territorial authorities and their councils still makes sense. (These are Auckland City, Manukau City, Waitakere City, North Shore City, Papakura District, Rodney District, Franklin District, Auckland City Council and Auckland Regional Council.) There's currently some discussion underway at Talk:Papakura District and a recent discussion of related categories at Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board#Category:Districts of New Zealand, as well as this discussion here. (On the noticeboard, it's been suggested we could rename some district categories to the corresponding local wards that have replaced them, although none of the correspondences are exact.) These articles are now in disrepair; they do acknowledge their status as former authorities early on, but do not use past tense throughout. Some of the information they hold is about the area, and some is about the authority. I still favour merging most of the details about the former authorities into the list of former territorial authorities in New Zealand, or possibly into Auckland Council for the ACC and ARC. --Avenue (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Elliot Tower???

I am a bit suspicious about the license of that image to start with (though it COULD be someone's own take on the proposed design) - but is it appropriate for the Auckland article to show a skyscraper design with an image as if it was already built, of a project that has not made any progress since 2009, when it was essentially buried silently in the GFC? I say remove... Ingolfson (talk) 02:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it probably IS someone's private take (or crop & photoshop), because the positioning in the image is wrong - the tower would be, seen from the Mount Eden position, be to the right and slightly behind the Crowne Plaza hotel. It is however shown way too far south (i.e. in the front of the image) to be correct. Another reason for remove, I am afraid. Ingolfson (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
We have no shortage of pictures to illustrate this article. I agree that having an incorrect picture of a proposed project is low priority.-gadfium 03:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I've replaced the image with a historical photo and and one of older housing. I was thinking of 3 photos, one historical, one showing a villa and a 3rd with a modern house/apartment. Not 100% there yet so if you can find a better photo then replace. I took a few photos in Brown St in ponsonby last week so I'll see if they turned out. - SimonLyall (talk)

Population

Auckland has a population of 1.5 million now... I propose I make a change or someone else makes changes to the article referring to this... http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10782565 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.142.195 (talk) 10:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Merry isthmus

So what's the name of the one the city's on...? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

It's the Tamaki isthmus, but sometimes called the Auckland isthmus.-gadfium 03:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Record high temperature

I have removed "Climatic conditions vary in different parts of the city owing to geography such as hills, land cover and distance from the sea, hence unofficial temperature records exist, such as a maximum of 34°C (93.2°F) in West Auckland" - source Auckland enjoys hottest day ever, NZH, 12 February 2009. The Herald does not say that 34 is a record high. It says only that it was higher than the official high that day of 32.4 at Whenuapai. It does not rule out previous higher unofficial temps. In addition, the Whenuapai figure of 32.4 is said by Jim Salinger to equal the previous high, but this is contradicted by "The absolute maximum recorded temperature is 34.4 °C", from the MetService. Pending further reliable sources, I think we should stick with the MetService, rather than the Herald, which is not reliable and may have misquoted Salinger. Nurg (talk) 11:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Commas missing from 7 digit population figure

The 2nd sentence says "It has 1397300 residents". The omission of commas is contrary to the Manual of Style. Can this be fixed. I don't know how. Nurg (talk) 08:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The template used, Template:NZ population data, states explicitly "The template data uses formatted text numbers, with the comma thousands separator..." which is either wrong or relies on the input data containing the commas! User:Avenue is the last to update the template so they should now how to fix it. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I have left a note for Avenue, who may be on holiday at present. Nurg (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Auckland Climate

To Gadfium, since you reverted my edit commenting that NIWA is the appropriate authority for New Zealand weather records. Regarding the highest and lowest record temperatures for Auckland, please add them to the table, because I looked through the page of NIWA and couldn't find them. Thanks. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 05:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I would think they are in http://cliflo.niwa.co.nz. Registration at this site is free, but for some reason it is not accepting my login at the moment. Although a site which does not require registration would be easier to use as a reference, a site which is not accessible at all from the relevant country is not a good reference. However, you could see if Bing Weather gives its source.-gadfium 06:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
The site has errors. I only found that one, Meoweather. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I managed to get a new login to niwa last night - my old one just returned an error message. This morning, the new one does too. In the interim I poked around but couldn't get it to produce a report of record temperature by month for Auckland. It's almost certainly in there somewhere, but given the difficulty of the NIWA interface I think just using Meoweather is fine.-gadfium 02:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Auckland metropolitan area - inconsistency

The Auckland page needs work on its Metro population and land area figures. The page's info box says the Metro land area is 559.2 km2 and the Metro population is 1,507,700 (June 2012 estimate). The word "Metro" hyperlinks to the page on Metropolitan area. However the Auckland Region page's info box says the Auckland Region land area is 4,894 km2 and the Auckland Region population is 1,507,700 (June 2012 estimate). It looks like what has happened is that the Metro population on the Auckland page has been incorrectly updated to show the entire Auckland Region population, but while retaining the smaller "Metropolitan Urban Limit" land area as it was in 2006. The MUL is referred to in this March 2011 Auckland Council document (which footnote 2 on the Auckland page cross-references). That document showed the population within the 559.2km2 MUL as 1,160,751 in 2006, and called it the Metropolitan area. The borders of the MUL are extended periodically, it seems to allow more intensive development within the MUL. You can see that this Auckland Council search page shows a number of extensions. So the 2006 figures of 559.2km 2 and 1,160,751 population will be out of date. It looks like the MUL is going to be replaced by the Rural Urban Boundary (see Council update).

It would be great if we could find an up-to-date figure for the land area of the MUL and the population within it, because the MUL (and the RUB should it replace it) is a useful thing to know about. It may not equate perfectly to Auckland's "metropolitan area", because it is a legal construct of the Auckland Council, but it might be the closest thing we can get. Does anyone know how to get an up-to-date area and population for the MUL?

So there seem to be a few options:

1) maybe the Auckland Region is in fact the closest thing we have to a metropolitan area? It's pretty massive, but its land area seems roughly on par with the land areas of the Australian capital cities' metro areas. If we decided that the Auckland Region could double as the Auckland metro area then we could make this clear on the Auckland page and use the land area figure of 4,894 km2 for the Auckland metro area.

2) maybe the Auckland Region isn't a very good stand-in for a metropolitan area? We could delete the metro area line and just use the Urban Area figure to double as the Urban/Metro area. It looks like the Urban Area figure and Auckland Region figures come from Statistics NZ. This would seem to make better sense of the two different pages - one for Auckland Region and one for Auckland.

3) if we really need a metro area figure distinct from the Urban Area then we need some other source. We could consider using updated MUL data. Or maybe we could use Demographia's estimate based on a satellite view of the extent of development and then an estimate of population within that zone. Their most recent document is here and seems to say Auckland's metropolitan area is 544km2 containing 1,310,000 people. Using their figure would help with comparing Auckland against other cities whose pages cite the Demographia stats (I don't know if this is common or not).

In the meantime does anyone know how to add a health warning to the metro land area, population and density figures on the Auckland page?

Schnackal (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Cityscape/Image skyline

Better image

I believe the montage in the infobox is very shady and all over the place, and doesn't really capture Auckland's beauty and makes it look almost as if it is just a small city on a mountain when it is really a huge bustling metropolis. I feel this image captures Auckland beautifully and should be used in the infobox. Also I don't think it would hurt to add this panorama to the geography section:

Auckland waterfront skyline (CBD)

--Mick man34 ♣ (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

We already have about around 4-6 wide shots of the CBD (depends how you count them) in the article. I don't think two more is a great improvement. I'm not sure what you mean by "shady" but if you want to replace specific photos in the infobox then go ahead. Please remember though that Auckland is not just the CBD so having nothing but photos of tall buildings (plus the skytower of course) isn't really the whole city. - SimonLyall (talk) 06:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I just believe that the quality of the images were a little poor. There were really only 2 shots of the CBD, and believe me I know there is much more to Auckland. However I just felt that a simple well quality skyline would better replace the current infobox montage. Thanks! --Mick man34 ♣ (talk) 13:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

A few comments

A few comments on the page and things that I think should be improved:

The metro population in the introduction is listed as being 1,397,300, whereas the metro population in the info box is 1.5 million. This should be amended - perhaps the introduction could state the population for both the urban area and that of the entire metropolitan/council area. Some of the sections could also be ordered differently - economy, education and housing, for instance, seem more important than lifestyle in an article on a city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.25.110 (talk) 22:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to add that the electricity section is disproportionately long relative to other sections such as Arts, education and economy. This should be significantly reduced in length. It could also be good to create a new section on infrastructure under which transportation, telecommunications, healthcare and electricity could be included.

Also, the list of famous sights is a bit redundant as many of those sights have already been mentioned at previous points in the page.

Auckland urban area size

Aucland's urban area size is 1086 sq km. And population cant even be theoretically so dense as listed in article.

http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/people_and_communities/geographic-areas/urban-rural-profile/main-urban-areas/people.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.71.47.201 (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I've fixed the dead link to the source our article cites for those figures. As it explains, there are different ways of defining the Auckland urban area. At least according to some of those, Auckland is quite densely populated. --Avenue (talk) 11:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
If somebody has time on their hands they could do some comparison maps with the different areas highlighted. - SimonLyall (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

File:AucklandPano MC.jpg

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:AucklandPano MC.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 14, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-07-14. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Auckland
A panoramic view of Auckland, the largest and most populous city in New Zealand. At the far left is the Auckland Harbour Bridge; prominent in the centre-left of the photograph are the Sky Tower and the Auckland Central Business District, which is one of the most built-up areas in the country.Photograph: Christian Mehlführer
Archive – More featured pictures...

Auckland's lifestyle is influenced by the fact that while it is 70% rural in land area, 90% of Aucklanders live in urban areas

I've no idea what this means, and I'm a native English speaker. Plain English please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.72.147 (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

70% of Auckland's area is rural land. Yet 90% of Aucklanders live in urban areas, i.e. the other 30% of land. pcuser42 (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Climate

An IP has made the change to subtropical climate, citing a user-created wiki image as a source. While wiki is not self-referencing this NIWA link [2] would seem support the change. Are there, as I suspect, equally valid references to support the previous classification of temperate? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 11:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I've amended the climate section accordingly. The Trewartha climate classification puts Auckland clearly into its subtropical category (C) due to it not having any cool or cold months. The Koeppen climate classification puts Auckland clearly into the temperate oceanic climate, along with all of NZ, except for high altitude locations on South Island, which have a continental climate or alpine climate. Koeppen does not include any part of NZ in its humid subtropical climate, due to the country not having hot summers, which are required for its Cfa designation. Koeppen only narrowly includes Sydney in that classification. Jim Michael (talk) 10:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

"People" section vs. "demography" section

While reading this article a few minutes ago, I found two nearly identical sections: one called "People" and another called "Demography" below it. The demography section was more detailed and included details about ethnic backgrounds, population growth, and religion, but the people section consisted solely of information about ethnic backgrounds, a blank subheading that read "Demographics", and a link to the page "Culture of New Zealand". The people section was also more abridged than the demography section. Maybe the two sections could be merged into one section? Or the people section could be expanded further? Sorry if my post was difficult to understand; this is my first contribution to a Wikipedia talk page. Everyone needs a little Bad Weather. (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Not contiguous

I would question that statement that: "It is not contiguous; the section from Waiwera to Whangaparaoa Peninsula is separate from its nearest neighbouring suburb of Long Bay". That implies that another province lies between, but the land is continuously Auckland.122.59.83.216 (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Ethnic group

The article states that "Asians are Auckland's fastest growing ethnic group". But "Asian" is not an ethnic group under any accepted definition. Asia is a continent, Asian a person from that continent. There are many, quite diverse, ethnic groups, there.122.59.83.216 (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

NZ ethnic statistics are often grouped into European, Maori, Pacific, Asian and Other, whichever a person most closely identifies with - as shown in the census data table in section 4 Demography. So that's the definition of "Asian" being used here I suspect. Tayste (edits) 07:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of Auckland

What is missing from the city timeline? Please add relevant content. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 11:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Bad reference

In the first paragraph of the lead, this appears: Auckland also has the largest Polynesian population of any city in the world.[4] The reference, first retrieved in 2010, is now not relevant as it takes the reader to an error page. Akld guy (talk) 11:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I've linked to an archive of the ref.-gadfium 23:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Economy

All of the dollar values cited in the 'Economy' section come from statistics that are now very old, the worst example being from 2001. Somebody with time on their hands might like to update them. Akld guy (talk) 08:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

All the New Zealand flags are incorrect

All flags under the country sections of NZ on wikipedia are referencing a flag currently under debate for changing the flag in NZ. For example: looking under the Auckland right-hand column shows the incorrect flag for New Zealand in under the map section.

The union jack and southern cross is still the current flag in NZ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.67.46 (talk) 05:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Correct, we haven't even finished the first referendum which decides an alternative yet. pcuser42 (talk) 08:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Add record highs & lows to the climate table

Many Wikipedia tables include record temps, and this gives a useful feel for temperature variability. 99.190.133.143 (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that in the previous discussion, the record highs and lows come from Cliflo database but you do need to register. As much as I would like to add it in (you do have a good point), using a source that is not really accessible at all is not a good reference, even though NIWA is the appropriate authority for New Zealand weather records. Although other sources may display record temps, they would be unreliable unless they use NIWA data. Unfortunately, this is a trend seen in other countries where many meteorological organizations don't provide free climate data or only provide basic climate data. Ssbbplayer (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I just realized that the new weather box was updated with record highs but the source is inaccessible. I am not sure if it should be reverted to the older ones. Ssbbplayer (talk) 02:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Except for the extremes, all the others should be from the 1981–2010 period as the source is more accessible and remains stable over the years; using the database and the full reference period means that the data has to be changed every year, making it prone to vandalism. As well, the database is not really that accessible. Ssbbplayer (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Auckland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Lead image desc.

The lead image must have the description of the picture, like other cities:

From top, clockwise: Auckland's skyline, building A, building B, etc.

@ldrianyf ^o^ % 02:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Auckland. 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) 06:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Housing section added to

Hello all,

Since the Housing section lacked significant material, i have added the following to it regarding special housing.

Many residents in Auckland were facing a housing crisis during the late 2000s. Since the housing in the current market are not affordable for every citizen, the government has had to take certain measures to ensure that every citizen can afford housing. The Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act was passed in 2013 which ensured that a certain percentage (at least 10, but more in certain areas) of houses in certain housing areas were priced at an amount that was considered to be affordable for a household earning what was considered the average income at the time[75]. For example, in the neighborhood of Hobsonville Point it is 20% and those houses are priced below $550,000 to make it affordable for people who earn the average wage[75]. While the program has been in effect for a few years, it is not at the stage where the program is fully functional. Many SHAs have been established and de-established since the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act was passed in 2013. There are still many areas with SHA homes that are not fully functioning as they were meant to or just simply not accessible for their target demographic. There are a few simple explanations for this[75]:

• Not all developments have fully functioning websites as of today • There might not be one person in charge of that particular area that can be contacted • Some developers are not marketing SHA homes as of now • All the homes in a particular area have already been sold

There are still kinks in the system that need to be ironed out by the government as there are still many people who cannot either find or afford homes. Housing has been, however, more affordable for certain demographics than it has ever been. The Housing Legislation Amendment Act was passed in parliament in 2016 as an amendment to the Housing Accords and Special Areas of 2013[75]. This amendment was meant to make the parameters to classify SHA homes in certain areas more flexible[75]. The population of Auckland will need more houses in the future due to its growing population - 53,000 people moved into the city between June 2014 and June 2015[76].

Oparano2 (talk) 08:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Future Growth

Hello all,

I've added information under the Future Growth heading, detailing more of Auckland's Unitary Plan for the city. The information I found comes from the Unitary Plan on the cities government website, please make any corrections to grammar or information as you see fit!

Thanks

Part of the plan includes creating a robust economy, stimulating business growth and further developing Auckland as an international city. Another large part of the Auckland Plan, labeled under Strategic direction 12 and Strategic direction 13, is to update existing infrastructure and develop new transport networks to accommodate the growing population and sprawling city. All the city’s power is currently generated off site and is funneled to the city along supply lines that are susceptible to disruption. The plan calls for upgrading and diversifying the city’s utility network including building new facilities that utilize renewables including solar on a small-scale. In terms of transportation, the plan addresses the impact of future traffic increase due to growing population and a lack of public transport. To combat these issues the city plans on utilizing public transport methods that are either underutilized or not in place at all. Facilitating the shift from private transportation to public transportation, the plan’s goal is to reduce traffic congestion, thus enabling the major roadways to be utilized for the transport of commerce and goods through the city. This goal aligns with the goal to grow the economy, putting an emphasis on the movement of goods throughout the city coming in and out of both the airport and the port.[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krickov2 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Auckland. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 17:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

City Flag

As I cannot add any pictures to wikipedia, I cannot add a picture of the city flag to this page. However, a picture of one can be seen here if anyone who can post pics wishes to do so in this case.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.72.138.86 (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that appears to be a flag that has no relevance to Auckland. Did you make a mistake with the URL? Akld guy (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Climate

In the first sentence, it states that Auckland's climate is oceanic to humid subtropical. I think the wording should be improved since the NIWA source never uses the term humid subtropical at all. The NIWA source classifies the Auckland area as being subtropical which I interpret it as a more general term (as subtropical climate include Mediterranean, certain arid/semi-arid climates). Humid subtropical is term reserved for areas where the mean temperature in the warmest month exceeds 22oC and the mean temperature in the coldest month is above -3oC and is not arid/semi-arid (see Köppen climate classification). I propose changing to saying that Auckland's climate is classified as subtropical according to the NIWA, and as oceanic under the Köppen climate classification. Ssbbplayer (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

You are correct that it's misleading; it has tripped up several earlier editors. A better phrasing would be appreciated. Akld guy (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Unclear information

Last sentence of the paragraph "Volcanoes":

"Few birds and insects inhabit the island because of the rich acidic soil and the type of flora growing out of the rocky soil."

Does this mean that the acidic soil and the type of flora do allow only a few species of birds and insects to live on that island?

OR

Does this mean that thanks to the geological properties and the growing flora a few species of birds and insects are living there?

I need this precision because I want to improve the French translation of this article.

Thanks in advance. MamieGeek (talk) 06:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@MamieGeek: It means that not many birds and insects live there, compared to other parts of Auckland. Presumably they don't like the acidic taste of the shrubs and flowers. Akld guy (talk) 07:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Joseph Weller

In July 2008, the respected historian Peter Entwisle added material to this article on Joseph Weller's purchase of much of Auckland in 1832. See original edits The material, as it existed earlier today after various edits over the years, was as follows:

On 27 January 1832, Joseph Brooks Weller, eldest of the Weller brothers of Otago and Sydney, bought land including the site of the modern city of Auckland, the North Shore, and part of Rodney District for "one large cask of powder" from "Cohi Rangatira".[1]

This was removed today by @E James Bowman: with the edit summary:

Removed Weller info as source does not exist and George Weller claim OLC495 held by Archives New Zealand is a primary source that requires interpretation

I note the same infomation appears in History of Auckland.

If the material is correct, then it seems a significant part of the history of Auckland, and I would expect that Entwisle is not the first person to have noticed the transaction, so secondary sources should exist. Unfortunately Entwisle is deceased, so we cannot ask him. Anyone available to do some digging on this?-gadfium 03:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ George Weller's Claim to lands in the Hauraki Gulf – transcript of original in National Archives, ms-0439/03 (A-H) HC.


Thanks gadfium. As I could find no record of this information anywhere else (and still can't) I asked Archives New Zealand for the transcript originally referenced. I received this reply:

Dear James

Thanks for your enquiry regarding the following reference cited in https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Auckland: George Weller's Claim to lands in the Hauraki Gulf – transcript of original in National Archives, ms-0439/03 (A-H) HC.

It's hard to tell where the transcript is located from the reference cited in Wikipedia.

However I believe the original item is held by Archives New Zealand in Wellington (often referred to as the National Archives), and is likely to be the archive listed below:

Old Land Claims Commission case files Case files [George Weller, Thames and Auckland - no papers], no date - no date [Archives reference: ACFC 16153 OLC1 23 / OLC 495 (R18461649)]

Digital images of the file are available at this link: George Weller claim OLC 495 and can be downloaded.

Page three of this file refers to the purchase on 27 January 1832.

It seems likely that the chief's name should be Kohi, rather than Cohi (as C doesn't appear in the Maori alphabet).

Please contact us again if you have further queries.

Yours sincerely

Stephanie van Gaalen Archivist

Auckland Regional Office

These links were embedded in her response:
https://www.archway.archives.govt.nz/ViewFullItem.do?code=18461649
https://ndhadeliver.natlib.govt.nz/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE16733212
Note I've also removed this info from Weller brothers and History of Auckland.
E James Bowman (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


Interesting that Peter Entwisle wrote this article about the Weller brothers, but didn't mention an Auckland land purchase: https://teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/1w13/weller-edward
E James Bowman (talk) 04:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


http://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/auckland-population/
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/aucklander/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503378&objectid=10999115
Whether these have been taken from the WIki article or not does not seem obvious. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


Thanks DerbyCountyinNZ. The first seems to have been taken from Wikipedia (and only provides sources for the stats). The second is satirical. E James Bowman (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Dual/Alternative Names

The city and region of Auckland is also known by its now widely-accepted Māori name of Tāmaki Makaurau (there have been a variety of Māori names and formatting historically). As explained in New Zealand place names: "Many names now have alternative or dual English and Māori names" "Most names have never been made official, but if they are mentioned in authoritative publications they are considered recorded names." Examples of authoritative publishing include:

Further information on NZ place names (including Official, Dual, Alternative & Recorded names) can be found here:

E James Bowman (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Just a FYI: LINZ doesn't (yet) have any record for "Tāmaki Makaurau" at all, so this can't (yet) be considered an official or 'dual name' with the same status as, for example, "Whakaari/White Island" and "Stewart Island/Rakiura". It is, however, the Maori-language name for the region (and a name that a few people also seem to enjoy using in English). Ross Finlayson (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Agreed Rsfinlayson, although I think the links above show it's more than "a few people". Same goes for Aotearoa New Zealand. E James Bowman (talk) 05:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I do not know where to put this, but Tamaki Makaurau is usually translated as Tamaki with a Thousand Lovers, not Tamaki desired by many as the article states here - Kika.txt (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kika.txt, that appears to be an outdated translation if you look at the contemporary source for the translation in the article. The NZ Geographic Board translates it as "Tamaki, a place favoured by many" in their Te Kia a Māui index of names linked here: https://www.linz.govt.nz/regulatory/place-names/about-new-zealand-geographic-board/nzgb-place-name-maps-and-publications E James Bowman (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification Kika.txt (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Transport as a separate section to infrastructure

Would it not make sense to have transport as a sub-section of infrastructure?

If the transport section is too large to be reasonable accommodated as a sub-section, then could the 'infrastrcutre' section be renamed 'utilities' or something similar? Further, shouldn't telecommunications infrastructure be included too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GSNW8FRJ (talk • contribs) 21:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

You seem to have a valid point. However, "Transport" refers to more than just infrastructure (e.g Services, Modes, Transport preferences). Non-transport infrastructure also encompasses more than utilities (such as housing). MangoMan11 (talk) 03:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

New Zealand

That they have put some wrong information about new Zealand in the history part of it 2001:BB6:5A8F:3B00:FD50:73DF:5FD1:6FBB (talk) 12:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Please explain which parts you think are incorrect.-gadfium 04:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Tourism and Sport sections

I noticed that the tourism and sport section consist of bullet pointed lists and I see that this has been criticised in the past. I think that it might be a good idea to transfer theses lists over to new pages (e.g Sport in Auckland) so that these sections can be rewritten in an encyclopedic format. MangoMan11 (talk) 05:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

This article definitely needs to be trimmed as it is 50% above the recommended article size. Sport is certainly one section that could be removed/expanded/improved as a stand-alone article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Interesting. How do you know this? MangoMan11 (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:TOOBIG "> 100 kB : Almost certainly should be divided". Current size of this article is marginally under 150 kB. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Liveability rankings

The lede currently describes Auckland as being recognised as one of the world's most liveable cities and provides two sources, the Economist global liveability index and the Mercer Quality of Living index. Having had a look at the Economist index in particular,it is not at all cross-cultural and heavily based on US values. The way the sentence is presented makes it sounds like the entire world thinks our city among the most liveable whereas the sources suggest more that it's mostly the western world thinking as such (and that is debatable as well). In any case I don't think there is sufficient evidence to make that statement about Auckland. I also don't think it is particularly helpful as we should not assume knowledge about US/western values from readers. Furthermore, as we cannot expect readers to know how liveability is judged in these rankings, they have little meaning and have an increased potential to mislead.

An example of a measure used for the Economist index is "discomfort of climate for travellers". Obviously to a degree what is comfortable depends on what you are used to. So are these travellers used to monsoons? Probably not, they probably mean American travellers. Another measure showing strong US bias is "availability of private healthcare" and private education. Even if a city has good education, but not good private options, it will have a lower ranking. Yes, making a ranking that captures everyone's ideas of liveability is hard if not impossible and for that reason they should probably be avoided from articles about cities. Philipp.governale (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

You certainly have a point here. but it applies to the lists that various organisations create and not to any one city. Do the articles on many of the cities that rank well on the various lists include mention of those rankings, or is the Auckland article unusual in this respect? You might suggest at Talk:Most livable cities that the inherent bias in the lists make them unsuitable for inclusion in city articles, and if you gain consensus there they could be removed from all articles. Most livable cities is an appropriate subject for an article though, in my opinion. I was interested to see that Auckland ranks only 93rd on the Numbeo list.[4]-gadfium 21:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
You are right, this is not the right place as this is an issue with many city articles. I will try to start a discussion at the most liveable cities talk page, thanks for the suggestion. Interesting that Auckland should rank so lowly on the Numbeo list, that index appears to favour North American cities a great deal more in general compared to the other indexes. Philipp.governale (talk) 08:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
@Gadfium: I tried to raise the issue on the Most livable cities talk page about a year ago, but haven't received any response. What should I do now in your opinion? In my opinion the burden of proof should lie on those seeking the inclusion of the rankings in city pages as inaccurate or misleading information is more harmful in this case than the absence of this information. Philipp.governale (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
You can try asking for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities. Your requested move already shows up on their project page, but that's automatic and a talk page post will appear on watchlists for project members. Beyond that I regret I have no further suggestions for you.-gadfium 03:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Auckland/Archive_2&oldid=1240136442"