Talk:Auckland Council

	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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the New Zealand politics task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Auckland Top‑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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Largest council in Australasia

I've redirected to better sourced material. We don't yet know the name of the new authority, so "Auckland Council" breaks WP:Crystal. Also the claim about largest council in Australasia seems highly doubtful since the so-called "super city" will only be the 6th largest city in the region. dramatic (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That section of the bill has now passed, it wouldn't be called "Outsized Council", "The Sons and Daughters of Maui Council", "Auckland Katchafire Council", "Everyone Belongs Council", "John Key Memorial Council", or "Melissa Lee Memorial Council". [1] F (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oh well, some of those names sounded cool! Mathmo ^Talk 07:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The info on the largest council in the article and sourced albeit to something before the creation of the Auckland Council. Simple OR suggests it's likely accurate in terms of population, List of cities in Australia by population shows the only one in Australia which comes close is City of Brisbane but that's only slighly over 1 million and the rest are much smaller. The other large Australian statistical divisions like Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide are primarily made up of tiny local governments by comparison. (The largest ones for them have less population then even the previous Auckland City Council.) Incidentally there are only 4 statistical divisions in Australia with a greater population, not 5, although it depends somewhat on what you count (and of course Sydney and Melbourne are more than double Auckland so you could divide them in to 2). There's of course nothing with a greater population in New Zealand or anywhere else in Australasia. Of course largest is ambigious and could refer to size of the area they are in charge of or their budget or some strange combination of these and I don't know how Auckland compares for these, so perhaps the sentence could be clarified. Nil Einne (talk) 09:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last election was held on Saturday 9 October 2010

Re the phrase "The last election was held on Saturday 9 October 2010" - is that correct or is that just when the postal voting ended after three or so weeks Kahuroa (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, how about "The last election ended on Saturday 9 October 2010"? Mattlore (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've given this a shot - see what you think. Schwede 66 22:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that works guys. Kahuroa (talk) 23:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CEOs of CCOs

If somebody has time, this media release lists the (interim) CEOs of four of the CCOs. Schwede 66 01:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Named for George Eden, Earl of Auckland

It was George Eden, not his father William that gives Auckland it's name. The Auckland Islands get their name from William. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.123.104.22 (talk) 01:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Area - 6,059 km2 vs. 5,600 km2

What is the actual land area of the Auckland Council? I ask, because this page list 5,600 km2 for the land area, but the page for Auckland Region gives an area of 6,059 km2. Since they are coterminous, shouldn't these numbers be the same?

The border between Auckland and Waikato was adjusted on the formation of the new Auckland Council, with a significant amount of land land in the south-east part of the region transferred to Hauraki District (which is part of Waikato). This would explain the 459 km2 reduction. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 11:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The figures in the two articles should still agree with each other, though. I would change the Auckland Region article, but I haven't been able to track down a source for the 5,600 km2 figure yet. --Avenue (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, guys. Whenever you're able to confirm an exact measure of the area for the region and council, you can make the change so they they jibe. Thanks, again. --Criticalthinker (talk) 09:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've tracked down a source for an area figure of 4,894 km² ([2], page 2), but this is so different from the others that it seems to me something must be wrong. I'll look into it further. --Avenue (talk) 11:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I can derive the 5,600 km² from the figures in this version of our Territorial authorities of New Zealand article, so that may well have been correct before 1 Nov 2010. But for the 4,894 km² figure to also be correct, Auckland would have had to lose about two thirds of its part of Franklin District, rather than the 15% or so I'd guess from this map (3.5MB pdf). So things are still not adding up. --Avenue (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another source for 4,894 km²,[3] and for 5,600 km².[4] The latter source was updated in October, so presumably that's the area of the old Auckland Region. I don't understand why the difference is so big (I'd estimate the lost area as roughly 120 km², not 700), but since there are multiple sources saying 4894, in the absence of anything better I guess we should go with that. I'll stop talking to myself now. :) --Avenue (talk) 12:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, someone could just contact the region's/council's planning department for a definitive explanation. The descrepency may be between total area (including land and water) and then just land area. I have no idea. Thanks for all of the research, though. --Criticalthinker (talk) 03:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Auckland Council. 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) 06:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change to table format

I have renamed the Local board table and changed its format so that the wards are in the left column. This more closely shows the structure, with the boards being subsets of the wards, rather than implying the reverse. I've also linked (in some cases redlinking) some entries to show that they deserve articles. Pippa Coom has been linked. I've changed none of the individuals' names; any errors that existed are retained. I suspect that there may be conflicts between the names and what the relevant ward and board articles say; needs more work to check that members' names are correct. Akld guy (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC

On checking the entries for Albany Ward in the table, I find many discrepancies with the Auckland Council list. Taking for example, the Hibiscus and Bays Local board, the entries do not agree with the council's list of sitting members here. Am I mistaken? If there's a consensus that I'm right, I'll be happy to update all entries in the table. Akld guy (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board members. Apparently there was a ruling that took place after either the 2013 or 2016 election that a member could not sit on two boards. This meant that Greg Sayers stepped down from this local board. The table wasn't updated. Akld guy (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wards map

Since ward boundaries were changed this year (and effective at this month's elections), the map in the infobox is no longer an accurate representation of ward boundaries. Furthermore, local board boundaries no longer line up nicely with ward boundaries. For example, previously all of the Waitematā Local Board was in the Waitematā and Gulf Ward, but part of it is now in the Ōrākei Ward. Adabow (talk) 05:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Value of Auckland Unlimited

I don't know much about annual reports, but I assume you might be able to find the value of Auckland Unlimited in their annual report. https://aucklandunlimited.com/aul-annual-reports Forces2019 (talk) 05:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the asset value of the predecessor organisation RFA.-gadfium 23:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged criticism of establishment of Council

Paragraph of the introduction reads in part "...Both the means by which the council was established, and its structure came under repeated criticism from a broad spectrum during the establishment period." There is no body text or citations for these claims. In the normal way an article is written, an introductory paragraph such as this would be expected to be backed up by a substantive amount of content in the body of the article. This means I can delete that text if no one provides an improvement to the article. PatrickDunfordNZ (talk) 02:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It exists in the controversies section. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]