Talk:Auckland City

New Zealand Mid‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Auckland High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Auckland, which aims to improve the coverage of Auckland, New Zealand, on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.AucklandWikipedia:WikiProject AucklandTemplate:WikiProject AucklandWikiProject Auckland
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Suburbs

Any reference for the suburbs list? e.g. Wises, NZ Post?

Cannot figure out how to get a reference for the suburbs list but i can reference in a link to Wises for Auckland CBD map. Rgp2130 12:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't reference either of them - both are likely copyrighted and thus incompatible with GFDL Inzy (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Inzy - we can certainly reference (i.e. point to) copyrighted material. As long as we don't copy over lists of data (though a simple list of suburbs alone would not be copyrightable anyway).

At the end of the day, this discussion has been had before, such as on this Wikipedia board - there IS no one definition that is commonly accepted, and even official sources use different boundaries, so the articles will always stay a bit indistinct as well. Ingolfson (talk) 10:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture problems

I do not know who put in the two images "360 Auckland.jpg" and "auckland city skyline.jpg" but i have removed them as one was covering the text box on the right and the other was covering text in one of the sections. This was done as a minor edit to clean up the page.

Rgp2130 12:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Economy

So, what other major companies are based in Auckland City? Instead of removing one of them, I reverted the guy who did it, placed an {{expand}} tag, and asked him to use the expand tag instead. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One company is not the economy. A paragraph which lists the major employers might be. Adding an obviously inadequate section such as this only reduces the quality of the article.-gadfium 17:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said "One company is not the economy"

1. I listed two companies, not one.

2. The {{expand}} tag is there for a reason. Please use it. Template:Expand says everything about it.

3. It is perfectly acceptable to start a "seed" of a section or an article. Wikipedia allows Wikipedia:Stubs, for instance. Are we to start deleting stubs because they don't say enough about a subject?

4. This article is not of any good quality right now due to a lack of content. If you delete the start of a legitimate section, how on earth is that improving it? Please build articles.

5. Air New Zealand and Carter Holt Harvey are undoubtedly major companies and employers. If you want more companies, please find more. Let them remain, and find more. Find a top 10 list specifically for Auckland City if it exists. Please do not delete the rose buds of promising, needed, legitimate sections. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am not sure that Air New Zealand is a major employer in Auckland City. How many employees does it have in the city? I suspect that there are many companies which employ more people. I note that you also tried to list Aircalin, so it would appear that you want a list of all employers, regardless of size or importance. This is not acceptable. Such a list is not a rose bud. Please consider improving the article, not adding poorly populated lists without criteria for membership.-gadfium 19:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for membership clearly depends on relative importance. So, maybe relatively Aircalin has not as many employees, so maybe it could be left out. But clearly Air New Zealand is a very important company in Auckland City as it is headquartered there. You said: "so it would appear that you want a list of all employers," - No. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) thins the herd significantly. What's the point of listing a company that can't have a Wikipedia article? In other words, I can understand maybe leaving Aircalin out, but there is no way removing a Air New Zealand can be justified in any way.

It may be possible to find a number of people employed, but that's beside the point. Air New Zealand's headquarters are here. Air New Zealand is a major international airline. Automatic notability. It needs to go back in as soon as possible. You said: "not adding poorly populated lists without criteria for membership" - then please make it well populated instead of making pointless conflict by removing a list that has major companies in it. If you are going to ask, I have put place (city and neighborhood) articles through Wikipedia:Good article nominations - And improving them to GA quality is generally expanding, not removing. Lists of companies survive in GA-passed articles. They clearly have places in place articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plus http://www.emigratenz.org/major-auckland-employers.html lists "Auckland's Major Employers" - but there are no figures, so this list doesn't work. Besides, which companies pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)? Which ones have articles? Which ones are in the Auckland City? If you want to keep asking for a top list of employers, please make an effort to find such a list and incorporate it into the edits which need to be restored soon. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Air New Zealand possibly has more employees at Auckland Airport than it does at Auckland City. Perhaps you are not aware that the airport is not in the city? There is a distinction between the Central Business District, the city, the greater metropolitan area, and the region, all of which get called Auckland. The list you link to appears to relate to the greater metropolitan area.-gadfium 20:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of a major distinction, which is why I cite the airline contact page, which states the address of the place of contact. Therefore one can confirm it is indeed in Auckland City. Airline headquarter operations are as notable as actual airline operations. As for the list, I am going through the list to check to see whether a headquarter is in or out of Auckland City. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you want a list of major companies headquartered in Auckland City, regardless of how many people they may employ there. That's at least a criterion for inclusion. It doesn't actually say much about the city's economy, so I've renamed the section. Perhaps there's a better title still.-gadfium 21:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the economy section - with Auckland being THE city of New Zealand, this list will always be a major issue here, being too long and of little relevance to readers. We cannot fairly represent all companies, come anywhere near completeness, and will open us up to endless discussions of whether a single company is relevant hereor not. The concept of "automatic notability" that was mentioned above is also deeply misunderstood. Notability of a company does not provide it with inclusion rights in any potentially related article.

Crucially, I also point to New York City, which has a lengthy economy section, yet doesn't even really discuss any single company at all, except by providing a single Top 25 list that was ranked by an outside reference via a clear criteria (revenue). If you can provide a similar ref for companies in Auckland City (Auckland CITY, mind), then we would be happpy to have it. Similarly, if you could provide a referenced source for a "major companies headquartered in Auckland City, fine (MAJOR only, mind, meaning the decision cannot be made neutrally by Wikipedians - the corner deli next to my house is also a company, and also headquartered in Auckland - should we include it? Endless discussion and strife follows). Please no adding of individual companies (even with refs) without any rhyme and reason. Ingolfson (talk) 11:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New York City has 8 million people and includes all areas of the city. Auckland City has 438,100 people, much smaller. Because Auckland City is much smaller, it cannot be compared to New York City in size, and the article cannot be written like New York City's. Fort Worth, Texas is around the size of Auckland city, and so Auckland City and Fort Worth's articles should be modeled like each other. Auckland City can have more specific information because it is a smaller city. Also because no other editors established anything about the economy in Auckland City, it is not appropriate to remove what I added. If you think it is not representative, add an {{expand|section}} tag. Also, there is no dispute that Air New Zealand is a major company, so we are obligated to list it, especially when no other companies are listed already. If you think the information is not representative, you are obligated to expand it, especially since Auckland City does not have the scope and generality that New York City has. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also we now know how many local employees Air New Zealand had in 2006: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/airlines/news/article.cfm?c_id=113&objectid=10396043 - Around 1,000 were to be moved to the new Air New Zealand headquarters. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think any such list ought to be at List of companies in Auckland and be for the greater area, this City area merges into the supercity in October 2010[1]. Looking at List of companies of New Zealand, I can suggest a threshold of inclusion to be a headquartered in Auckland *and* a NZX market capitalisation[2] of NZ$100 million or equivalent on other markets, or book value of the same amount[3]. "Headquartered" ought to be the Headquarters, Head Office or similiar address listed on the company website or annual report, within the Auckland Region until the supercity boundary is announced in April 2010(page 18). See also WP:NOTDIR and List of companies in Houston. XLerate (talk) 00:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am from Houston and frequently edit Houston area articles, so I have seen and edited List of companies in Houston. When Auckland becomes a supercity, what you described above is a great idea; it would be a perfect counterpart to the Houston list. In addition I list companies in business districts and neighborhoods, I.E. Downtown Houston#Economy and Greenspoint, Houston#Economy.

As for New Zealand companies, Air New Zealand has a market capitalization of 1,331,553,351 [4]. Also I uploaded a pic of Air New Zealand's corporate headquarters from Flickr, and I would like to use this image in the Auckland City article.

As for how to deal with NOTDIR, one adds additional details about how the company's operations came to the location; i.e. in the Downtown Houston article I mention when Continental Airlines moved its headquarters to Downtown Houston. The way to solve NOTDIR in this case is to add information. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the section. If you want a section on the economy of Auckland, then you have to write something about the economy of Auckland. Writing something about a single company says very little about the economy.-gadfium 05:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_Zealand#Air_New_Zealand_and_Auckland_City - I feel the removal of the Air New Zealand stuff is totally unjustified. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Business Section

I've restored the section with the two entries. It had been reverted incorrectly as being just a single entry. Both are independently notable, Wiki-linked, and properly cited. I left the expansion tag because it does need more entries, which should not be too hard to find if someone wants to go digging. Bullzeye ^contribs 21:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Auckland City. 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) 06:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted measure of land area was probably correct

The land area of 637 sq km has been removed from the info box, with the edit summary:

"Removed area total, cannot find an accurate size of total area of the Old Auckland City but the given size is completely incorrect, if you look at the size of urban auckland given on the wikipedia article for auckland council/auckland region it's actually smaller yet Auckland city was a smaller entity than the modern urban auckland area so this is implausible, 637km2 is also far too large although I'm unable to find a proper size."

The edit summary is incorrect as it is unaware that the Hauraki Gulf islands made up most of the land area. This archived Auckland City Council page says, "The city, suburbs and gulf islands cover an area of 637km2." I haven't found a clearer and non-defunct reliable source, so have not restored the deleted figure. I suspect there are printed publications in libraries that have the info. Nurg (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think Auckland City Council is an excellent reference for the area it governed, so the figure should be reinstated with the archived reference Nurg found.-gadfium 00:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

arcgis gives the Auckland City area as 629.41 km2 (open the "Territorial Authority" heading and select "Territorial Authority - 2010"). As the boundary lines of coasts and rivers get tweaked every few years, that's confirmation that 637 km2 is likely to have been correct.-gadfium 00:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing this is because the Auckland City wasn't just the isthmus, but the Hauraki Gulf islands as well. --Prosperosity (talk) 04:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restored the area with the reference supplied by Nurg.-gadfium 04:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Italics for some suburbs

What do italics signify for suburbs in the "Administrative divisions" section? Nurg (talk) 01:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. @Johnluisocasio:, can you explain?-gadfium 02:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simple. Those suburbs in italics signify that they weren't on certain lists, like on this archived link as a source:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080925055710/http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/council/members/boundaries/default.asp

Does that help clarify things? However, if you guys like and let me, I will just remove the italics part. jlog3000 (talk) 04:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks @Johnluisocasio:. What about the Community Board names, which are in that archived source? Nurg (talk) 04:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about them? They had actually existed during the time of Auckland City before absorbing the rest of the territorial authority units within Auckland Region to become Auckland Council today since late 2010, restructuring mostly "everything!" in the process. jlog3000 (talk) 04:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering what the italics meant, but you have now removed the itals, thank you, so I'm no longer puzzled. Nurg (talk) 06:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. I was only trying to fix on what was right. So it was the least I could do. So you're welcome. Plus, I'm an actual fan or admirer when it comes to local administrative geography of every nation, especially in the case of the territorial authority units within New Zealand. jlog3000 (talk) 09:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"City of Auckland" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect City of Auckland has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 8 § City of Auckland until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 19:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]