Talk:Auckland/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →


Contents

Transport

Ferries

User:Drstuey thinks that commuting by ferry is not an overly unique feature of AKL transport. I am sure he is technically correct but I sincerely doubt that any other city includes ferries as part of regular commuting as much as AKL. Ferries are viable because of the insane Harbour Bridge traffic. Other cities have more bridges than AKL. And although NYC and SYD have ferries, are they actually used by commuters or just tourists?! I'd rather keep the "unique"... Papeschr 04:41, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Never been to Vancouver, huh? Considerable amount of commuter traffic there is by ferry - probably a greater proportion that Auckland's. Auckland's ferries are not unique. [[User:Grutness|Grutness talk ]] 05:06, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Humm, I don't think they are unique, or even the most common form of public transport. I think a much higher proportion of public transport users in Auckland use buses than the ferry. Therefore I agree with Grutness that ferries aren't unique to Auckland. To me, as a Auckland citizen, they are just one of the options for public transport in Auckland. Also Gruntees brings up a good point that Auckland isn't the only city with ferries. Wellington and Christchurch both have ferry services. James Pole 10:20, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
Sydney is very similar to Auckland in some ways, and they use ferries even more, and on a much grander scale. Max robitzsch 12:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

eastern corridor

210.185.5.117 removed some of the paragraph about Auckland's traffic problems and the proposed Eastern motorway. I would prefer that this paragraph stay (and therefore reverted this poster's change), but perhaps we could change the wording if something about it offends this poster. I have changed the description of the opposition to the motorway from "growing opposition worldwide" to just "opposition". Gadfium 00:11, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

removed the phrase ", a scheme which would see thousands of homes demolished and inner city mangroves decimated" from traffic, as this is unreferenced, and does reflect a negative bias to the scheme, contrary to wikipedia's NPOV policy. removed "controversial" for the same reason. external links make alot of sense though, since there is opposition to it, even if the wikipedia isnt the place for expounding upon it.

(I quite liked the mangroves phraseology, but I agree that the paragraph was a shade unbalanced - however, I see nothing wrong with the factual word "controversial")
Anyway, just dropped by to mention Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand places as a page worth visiting by anyone thinking of going into more geographical detail  :-) Robin Patterson 01:19, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think describing Britomart as controversial is a simple statement of fact. I agree that the bit about the mangroves wasn't balanced.--Gadfium 02:06, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Central Motorway Junction

The caption under the image of the areal shot of the spaghetti (Image:CMJ.jpg) says: "The completed central motorway junction", I gather it refers to the old part being completed, but that is a bit misleading since there is quite a lot of work going on it now.--Konstable 02:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


Actually I have seen that photo before...on the transit website. Its actually a photoshopped picture to show what the junction will look like after the current construction work is completed, with all the added lanes and stuff. Dippit 05:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It is rather old in any case, since my apartment building (2205 finished) isn't on it ;-) Max robitzsch 12:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Urban Density

I removed the sentence 'This focus has been partly due to the low population density of the Auckland region (again, similar to New Zealand in general terms), making public transport less cost-effective when compared to denser urban centres in other parts of the world.' As this is incorrect. Auckland actually has a higher urban density than any large Australian city except Sydney, and higher than any large Canadian city except Toronto. And it is much higher than most comparable US city. It is only lower in comparison to European cities. See http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf for data. I removed it because I couldn't think of a better way of phrasing the sentence to make it accurate. Sunflower 23:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I missed your post here when I reverted the change as unexplained (because you posted here logged in but on the article as an anon, and you didn't post at the bottom of the page). The population density figures are perhaps not strictly comparable, because Auckland is constrained by the isthmus and is therefore more spread out than other cities with a comparable land area. I'll try rewording the sentence to show this.-gadfium 00:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
It depends rather a lot on one's frame of reference. Auckland might seem dense compared to North America and Australia, but it's not just European cities that are denser. A quick look at the link suggests that Auckland is not very dense compared to not just Europe, but Asia, South America, the Indian subcontinent, and Africa.--Limegreen 02:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, it would be good to point out that Asia and Europe tend to have (comparatively) good public transport systems, whereas the US does tend not to. Therefore, this actually supports the point that Sunflower felt disproven. MadMaxDog 07:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This section is still wrong, as far as I can tell:

A large percentage of Auckland is dominated by a very suburban style of building, giving the city a very low population density: although it has not much more than a seventh of the population of London, it sprawls over a considerably larger area
  • Auckland infobox says: area 1,086 km² (419 sq mi).
  • London infobox says: 1,579 km² (609 sq mi).

Last time I checked 1,086 was not "considerably larger" than 1,579. Of course, it is considerably larger than the City of London (2.6 km² (1.00 sq mi)), but that has a population of less than 10,000, which isn't seven times bigger than Auckland's one million... so this paragraph clearly does intend to compare with Greater London. Either way... something isn't adding up here?

Stevekeiretsu 03:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

New geostatistical table

I like it, Ben! Robin Patterson 06:36, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done it for Wellington and Dunedin as well Ben Arnold 09:46, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Auckland, Auckland & Auckland

I think it would be good to split this article into three so that there is a clear separation between the region Auckland, the metropolitan area Auckland and Auckland City. I envision that it would be split similar to how there are currently articles on London, Greater London and City of London.

What I propose is to have Auckland about the metropolitan area that is probably what most people think of as Auckland. Have Auckland City refer the city, that is the region governed by the Auckland City council. Then have an Auckland (region) that covers the entire Auckland region, that is the metropolitan area plus Franklin, Rodney and Papakura districts. Of course there will be some overlap e.g. Auckland would cover Auckland City but not to the same detail that the Auckland City article does. -- Popsracer 10:58, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

There is a WikiProject about places in New Zealand. We should probably discuss this there. Whatever we decide to do for Auckland should be consistent with what we decide to do for other places in New Zealand, or we should be able to identify what makes Auckland a special case.
My intuition on this is that creating additional articles does not add much value. People will inevitably make most of their contributions to the main article and the others will be largely stubs. Look at Wellington (region) for example.
The basic human tendancy when writing about a city seems to be to write generally about the greater metropolitan area, and in more specific detail about the core city. An example might be, "Auckland is a city of a million people, it is known for its landmark Sky Tower and One Tree Hill". I think this kind of article reads well and doesn't limit the writer. After all, much of the activity, growth, culture, and history of a region tends to be focused on its central city.
So I think we should think of the existing Auckland article in this way:
  • General scope includes the whole "greater urban area"
  • Specific focus is on Auckland City
  • Details of satellite cities relegated to their own articles
An advantage of this is that it's consistent with the other articles in the New Zealand series. The Whangarei article is about both the Whangarei Urban Area and Whangarei District.
A disadvantage is that it is slightly confusing what the scope of an article is. People don't know if they're writing about the city council area, or the urban area. I have tried to address this with the geostatistical sidebars for each article. The sidebar clearly (I hope) describes the two meanings of the term "Auckland" in a way that is consistent with the other articles in the New Zealand series, and without needing a separate article for each.
The London example is slightly different. The City of London is a very small area of London, with its own peculiar characteristics and history. Because of this, discussion of the City of London is too detailed to go on to the London article, which is much more general.
As for an "Auckland (region)" article, I find this an appealing idea. Most countries do have second-tier units (provinces, states, cantons). A "region" is a different concept from a "city", and different things could possibly be pertinent.
Ben Arnold 05:33, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
I agree with 3 articles, the main one being for the metro. I don't think it is a problem that the other 2 articles will be much smaller. I do hesitate over the Ak metro article having a "specific focus" on Auckland City as such, except insofar as AC does include the central and oldest part of Ak. I think it will "naturally" include more content on features, history etc within AC but the various Ak TLAs should be treated as equals, rather than AC being given a deliberate and stated emphasis. (Maybe I'm biased because I live in Ak but not in AC. I get annoyed at phrases like "John Banks, mayor of Auckland", because it is not true - he is mayor of Auckland CITY only".)
I would scope articles this way:
  • "Auckland" - main article; on the metro. This is what outsiders generally regard as Auckland.
  • Auckland (region) - covering the TLA Region. It may not say a lot but would cover the history of the Region as a TLA eg ARA, ARC.
  • Separate articles on the smaller TLAs eg North Shore City, Auckland City, Manukau City. These would include info specific to the TLA as a TLA (eg history of the TLA, old boroughs and counties incorporated into the City/District) and info on the area as a distinct area. For example, the main Auckland article might give an overview of North Shore history, but the North Shore City article would cover that history in much greater detail.
  • Separate articles on suburbs - in the case of suburbs that were originally separate towns (eg Onehunga, Howick, Devonport etc), these could be quite detailed and interesting articles, partic re their early history.
  • An article on "Auckland Province".
In my view the existing geostat table should be changed. "Ak City" is not "the" TA for the Ak metro. It is only one of several TAs of equal standing. Therefore the Name, Pop. and Extent boxes of TA should be removed and AC relegated to one of several TAs. The "see also" box should probably be renamed "Names". -- Nurg 08:45, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I might add I was surprised to see the extent of Ak as being Waiwera to Runciman. I think of Ak as being between the 2 bays - Long Bay and Bombay. But, if it's good enough for StatsNZ, I might get used to it. -- Nurg 08:53, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I hope to come to a compromise between Ben's view and Nurg's view here, as I think both are right but in a way both are pushing it too. The main one on Auckland should have a scope of the greater urban area, I agree with both, but I too am hesitant with the idea of having a focus on Auckland City within this article and having separate articles for satellite cities.
I suppose that in a way the article scopes I see are that of Nurg. However there should be some focus on central Auckland in the main article, like Ben said. I think that this focus should be on the people and history, but not the authority of Auckland City, as bringing this into the main article would make it confusing. Therefore I see it as follows:
  • Auckland. Main Article. scope: greater urban area, with more focus on the older and more active central Auckland, on the people and history and so on. Territorial Authorities like Auckland City don't come in here (except a link to it).
  • Auckland (region). Region Article, covering where the ARC roams.
  • Auckland City, North Shore City, etc. covering the authorative and administrational aspects rather than the people, history and geography. For cities other than Auckland City which have their own character and people and history and geography, they might want to go into that there as well. This will therefore be (especially the Auckland City one) noticably smaller than the main article.
  • Suburbs and Features
I've never heard of Auckland Province, so I don't include that here. I hope it helps. Neonumbers 05:51, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It's been some half-year since the initial proposition, no-one's objected... so what happens now? (yes, I am kind of new here) Neonumbers 04:50, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well it's half done. The Auckland (region) article was created a few days after Popsracer's suggestion in May. All we need now is an Auckland City article. Nurg 06:06, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm making the Auckland City article. Do watch that I make the page the way it's meant to be. I'm also moving the suburbs list there. Neonumbers 04:33, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I withdraw my reservations :)... it seems to have worked quite well for Auckland. It would probably work well for Wellington too. I'd want to be careful that we don't take this as too much of a precedent, though. We could end up creating a lot of unnecessary articles, if, say Rotorua was separated from Rotorua District, etc. Ben Arnold 05:24, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think it'll just vary from place to place. Rotorua, you're right, there's not much point. But I could see somehere like Gisborne, say, or Dunedin, getting separate articles for the urban area and the surrounding district. No hard & fast rule, just whatever seems most appropriate. [[User:Grutness|Grutness talk ]] 05:57, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Can someone take the TAs image from North Shore, New Zealand and make one for Auckland City? I don't know how to edit pngs. Thanks. Neonumbers 07:43, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Takanini

When writing an article on New Zealand Dairy Foods, a website said they are in Takanini, Auckland, New Zealand; is this a neighbourhood, or a town in a megacity of Auckland, or what? I believe its part of the Papakura District; I honestly though haven't the foggiest. For now, anyway Takanini, Auckland, New Zealand is a redirect to Auckland, New Zealand-- user:zanimum

It's a town in the megacity. Takanini used to be a small town sandwiched between the cities of Manukau and Papakura, but I suspect it's all one continuous urban centre now. I think at some point someone could write a separate article, but to redirect to Auckland for now is fine. My New Zealand Encyclopedia doesn't list Takanini at all.--gadfium 21:28, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
Hey, Takanini is part of Papakura! Thieving Aucklander!! ;o) Papeschr 06:18, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
And given that there's an article at Takanini... [[User:Grutness|Grutness talk ]]

Moved from Auckland, New Zealand to just Auckland

I have moved this page from Auckland, New Zealand to just Auckland. This is to be consistent with Wikipedia's international naming standards, which are to disambiguate only if the name of a place is in conflict with another use of the name, and the placename is not the most dominant use of the name.

I don't think there's even a disambiguation page for Auckland, so the question of dominance doesn't even arise.

Currently about half the links are to Auckland and half to Auckland, New Zealand. I expect this to slowly rationalise. I will make an effort to tidy some of this up myself.

Ben Arnold 05:59, 24 May 2004 (UTC)


Only just related: who/what/where was the City of Auckland named after? I had the vague idea that it was named after an English Bishop whose name was Auckland, but after finding Bishop Auckland I'm now awfully confused. Should there not be a disabiguation page, particularly as the Bishop Auckland page has a link to the as-yet-non-existant page West Auckland.--Dom 12:20, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
George Eden, Baron Auckland, born 1784, died 1849, Governor-General of India 1836-1842, subsequently made Earl of Auckland. A disambiguation page should be created at Auckland (disambiguation) and this page should remain just Auckland. Ben Arnold 05:41, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Where can we list the suburbs?

Particularly Auckland City suburbs, such as the newly-written-up Epsom, New Zealand? Robin Patterson 03:24, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've created a Category:Auckland, and put the Epsom article into it. If you were planning to write a lot of articles about the suburbs, it might be worth having a Category:Suburbs of Auckland (or Category:Auckland suburbs) as you can see the similar categories Category:Melbourne suburbs and Category:London Districts. -gadfium 05:15, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I have shifted them to Auckland (region) Papeschr 07:25, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
See the note below on lists - they should be written into the articles on the four cities, but preferably not as lists. In the case of other large NZ cities, they are arranged geographically (again as noted below). Also note that in the last week I've written small articles on about 25 suburban areas in and around Auckland. There is now a Category: Auckland urban districts, which keeps it in line with other large cities where suburbs and sectiions have separate articles. I've shifted them (and Epsom, New Zealand) there. This, also in line with these articles, should be for distinct areas of the urban area of any size, but should not include the article on the city (in this case four cities) itself/themselves, and should not include the likes of parks, streets or buildings. [[User:Grutness|Grutness talk ]] 11:15, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

largest city in the "south pacific"?

where does the south pacific start or stop? Sydney has much more people in the central "city" area than the whole of auckland, and indeed a much larger pure metropolitan area.

And Santiago has a bigger population than New Zealand as a whole.
Got to agree. It looks wrong. Nurg 06:51, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The phrase I hear most often is "Largest city in Polynesia" - which definitely exludes Australia but includes NZ. dramatic 09:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Would that have been to do with land area? I think Auckland is surprisingly high up the list for land coverage of cities of something...--Taitey 00:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

"Avoid lists"

I think it's a pity the way this article is going. Lists of DHBs, lists of suburbs containing links to mostly non-existent articles. Do readers really want to know there is a suburb called Davenport [sic] with no further info about it. I can see what's coming - lists of schools, lists of churches, ad nauseum. Meanwhile no work on the text of the article. There's a place for lists but this is an encyclopedia article about Auckland, not a series of lists. "You should avoid list-making in entries. Wikipedia is not a list repository .... Having lists instead of article text makes Wikipedia worse, not better." - Wikipedia:Embedded_list. Nurg 07:14, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I totally agree. Moving the lists to Auckland (region). People can abuse me later :o) Papeschr 07:24, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Those non-existent articles on suburbs will exist soon - I'm writing them at a rate of about ten a day, as I've been doing with other New Zealand geography articles (348 since early October). Give 'em time. I agree about the lists though. A far better scheme is that used for Dunedin and Christchurch - although the size of the Auckland U.A. might make it difficult: Inner suburbs listed geographically, clockwise from the city centre, then the same with outer suburbs. The best solution might be a clickable map, but that might be too much work. [[User:Grutness|Grutness talk ]] 11:01, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'll understand if you're mad at me for this, but the list of Auckland suburbs is back here - in different form. They have been arranged geographically, as I mentioned above, and the Waitakere, North Shore, and Manukau ones are on the pages for their respective cities arranged either in the same way or within the text of the articles. Listed suburbs do NOT beong on the region pages, since they aren't suburbs of regions, they are suburbs of the cities within the region. You'll notice that over 20 of the "non-existent articles" now exist, too. [[User:Grutness|Grutness talk ]] 07:12, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm moving them to the city pages. Hope no-one objects, but they don't belong here and they don't belong on the region page either so to the city pages it is. Neonumbers 04:35, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, OK - but now you have the task of disambiguating the Auckland conurbation (this page) from the city of Auckland. That will probably also mean a considerable rewrite of this article, sonce there's no indication on much of it that it isn't talking about Auckland city. Have fun! [[User:Grutness|Grutness talk ]] 05:29, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This article is about the Auckland metro area as a whole, so I made sure that it followed that and didn't get sidetracked to Auckland City. I thought it was fine, mostly, except for the isthmus part (which is now changed)... Neonumbers 04:52, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think the thing I'm most concerned about it that it doesn't say anywhere that it's not about the city itself. Read it as someone who doesn't know, and you're not going to find out you're not reading about Auckland city. It needs something - early - to say that this isn't an article about the city. I'd suggest replacing the first sentence (which is incorrect, anyway) with something like Auckland is the largest urban area in New Zealand. It is a conurbation, made up of the cities of Auckland City, Waitakere, Manukau and North Shore. In Maori... [[User:Grutness|Grutness talk ]] 05:54, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yep, I see what you're getting at now. It makes sense to replace the first sentence with something of the sort. I don't know, though, from an outsider's point of view, precisely what the difference between Auckland and Auckland City is, if it would be easy or difficult to distinguish, and if Auckland City is or isn't more than just a political division, and what is defined as "Auckland" in everyday use. Either way, specifying that it's a conurbation can't do any harm, so we may as well change the first sentence. But, out of interest, what does everyone else think of as "Auckland" and "Auckland City"? (I suppose this follows onto the other three cities and if they consider themselves Aucklanders?) Neonumbers 08:00, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
FWIW, even here at the other end of the country "South Auckland" and "West Auckland" conjure up completely different images, and neither image is that conjured up by "Auckland city" (to reduce it to its basest level: rappers, bogans, and yuppies respectively :) . Replace those terms with Manukau, Waitakere, and Auckland cities, and at least there's some key to the way they are differentiated in the public conscience. I think that - for much of the country - Waitakere, Manukau and North Shore are seen as peripheral parts of Auckland, a bit like massive super-suburbs clipped on the sides like the extra lanes on the bridge. [[User:Grutness|Grutness talk ]] 10:29, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The article as it is now then, does that reflect all of Auckland? I think it does, but I just want to check that I'm right. That, and does Auckland City need to cover anything more than administrational and geographic matters? History should more or less parallel Auckland's history, I think, though I don't know enough to say that for sure. Neonumbers 23:52, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Best thing might be to compare the city article with the ones for Waitakere, North Shore, Manukau - make it as similar to them in look as possible. That might also give more of an indication of what belongs there and what belongs here, although I don't suppose it would matter too much if there's an overlap of information to some extent between the articles. [[User:Grutness|Grutness talk ]] 00:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Population update

An anon contributor has updated the population figures for Auckland and several surrounding areas. While the changes are plausible, I'd like to know where they came from. A quick look around the Auckland City Council and statistics NZ articles didn't give me current population estimates. Does anyone have a source to back up these figures? I've left a message on the anon's talk page, but it's an xtra dialup account so it's unlikely they'll see it.-gadfium 18:32, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I found one. Statistics NZ has its population estimates tables, available at this page (you need to click on the link to the Excel table). The sub-regional tables are on Tables 2 and 3. The numbers for Auckland urban area and Auckland City parallel these ones; I haven't checked the other three figures (I'm too lazy). I also haven't done anything about the source except post this message, so if someone could cite that source or whatever needs to be done that'd be good. Neonumbers 11:27, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I updated the page with population figures from the 2006 census. Jarbury 02:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Auckland Power Crisis

Would anyone care to add a little information on the infamous 1998 Auckland Power Crisis? -- FP 01:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As you request. I hope I haven't just done your homework for you.
It wasn't my homework; I just thought it was a significant event for Auckland that belonged in the article :) -- FP 09:49, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
I fear that my addition may have left the History section a little unbalanced - it deals with the birth of Auckland, the loss of the capital, and the power crisis. We need more events in the history of Auckland to be added, or else the power crisis section moved somewhere else.-gadfium 04:14, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Do you think that Auckland might be big enough subject for a Timeline of Auckland history article?
We don't have enough yet for a History of Auckland page, but the individual items are too large for a Timeline of Auckland history page. I'm wondering if we should have a New Zealand collaboration of the week, with History of Auckland as one of the suggested topics. If anyone else agrees, we should move this discussion to the New Zealand wikipedians notice board.-gadfium 08:15, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've moved this section to 1998 Auckland power crisis and left a summary in this article.-gadfium 03:52, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Should we bother mentioning todays power crisis yet? Dippit 05:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it's a very minor blip in the grand scheme of things.-gadfium 05:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning the 1998 power crisis while other large events (1990 Commonwealth Games, 1987 Rugby World Cup Final, bombing of the Rainbow Warrior, 1981 Springbok Tour Protests and many more) have not been mentioned seems a bit odd. Jarbury 02:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Very true. The nature of Wikipedia is that people write about things that interest them. Someone asked for a section on the 1998 power crisis, so I wrote one, and later split it off into its own article. Someone, maybe you, could well go through the History section and flesh out the later events. It would then become eligible for movement to a separate History of Auckland article, with a summary left in the main article.-gadfium 03:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yesterday I did quite flesh out the history page, with some information about Auckland's early growth. I will endeavour to add to it in the near future, and yes perhaps to the extent where we can create a history of Auckland article. Jarbury 04:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that we are already at the point were this is needed (page size) / possible. If you want to go ahead, I'll cheer you on, Jarbury! MadMaxDog 08:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
If there was once a mention of the power crisis in this article, it has disappeared. I have added a brief mention in the one place it seems to be most appropriate. The incident did, as the article mentions, become an international news event and although I can see it's in the History of Auckland article, there should be some reference to it in the main Auckland article. Grimhim 01:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Translation

Somebody tried to set up a Spanish translation page, but did it very lazily by merely taking the English text and sticking it in. I'll go ahead and translate it. 3:33 am UTC 18 March 2005 S.W. Stiefel, NJ, USA quentin124@hotmail.com

Images of Auckland

Most of the images seem unhealthily fixated on the Sky Tower building - I know Auckland has more visually to offer than one building, and internationally the Sky Tower isn't particularly original. I'm thinking in particular that the image used in the introduction could be improved. It's currently mostly of the Sky Tower with some other visual information about a street ... and looks much like any other city in the world! Why not replace it with an aerial image that shows the harbour, the CBD and some islands? It could even be replaced by the image further down the page. Doing a quick Google Image search for picture of Auckland gives you an idea of what a beautiful city environment we have. We should show it! --Heyseuss 09:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Definition/boundaries of Auckland conurbation

The distinction between the 3 articles Auckland (metropolitan area/conurbation), Auckland (region) and Auckland City is spot on. The remaining difficulty is the scope of this Auckland conurbation article. At present the article intro says Auckland "is a conurbation, made up of the administrative cities of Auckland City, Waitakere, Manukau and North Shore". The sidebox says the extent is "north to Kumeu & Waiwera, east to Bucklands Beach, south to Runciman; excludes Waitakere Ranges & Hauraki Gulf islands". These 2 definitions do not match.

The sidebox definition is apparently based on Stats NZ's definition of the Auckland Urban Zone although I can’t now find Stats NZ's definition on their website (any pointers?). The sidebox can’t be accurate (although that’s not my main point here). Surely "north to Kumeu & Waiwera" should be "west to Kumeu & north to Waiwera", and "east to Bucklands Beach" must be "east to Howick (or maybe Shelly Park) and Papakura".

My main point is that if we stick with the (corrected) sidebox definition, the intro would have to say "Auckland City (excluding the Hauraki Gulf islands), North Shore, Papakura, the urban parts of Waitakere and Manukau, and some urban parts of Rodney and Franklin" to be accurate.

The question is, what should the scope be? This is a decision for us to make because there is no absolutely right answer (unlike the Region and Ak City which have official authority boundaries). Possibilities from narrow to broad include:

1. Auckland City (excluding the Hauraki Gulf islands), North Shore and the urban parts of Manukau and Waitakere.

2. The above plus Papakura.

3. The above plus the bit of Franklin down to Runciman. (This is more-or-less the "Long Bay to Bombay" that I tend to think of Auckland as.)

4. The above plus some urban parts of Rodney i.e. the Eastern ward/Hibiscus Coast (Whangaparaoa Peninsula, Orewa, Waiwera) and Kumeu.

Nurg 03:07, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My feeling is that the Auckland conurbation encompasses 3 or 4 above, plus definitely Waiheke Island - were you excluding that with the Hauraki Gulf islands?-gadfium 04:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes I was excluding Waiheke. Partly because StatsNZ's definition (4 above), which I think is very broad, doesn't include it. The other test I apply is to imagine I still lived in Christchurch and was planning to move north and was explaining to someone who was not familiar with Auckland's suburbs or authority boundaries. If I was going to Manurewa or Henderson or Browns Bay, I would say I was going to Auckland. If it was Papakura, I'd say "Papakura - these days it's part of Auckland". If it was Orewa, I'd say "Orewa, near Auckland" and likewise "Waiheke Island, near Auckland". It's all a case of personal perceptions and I don't actually know what the majority view is. Do Waiheke Islanders think they're living in Auckland (in contrast to Auckland City, of which there is no debate)? Nurg 10:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi all, sorry to come to this so late. I'm to blame for those statistics boxes. There are a number of issues here:

  • we should attempt to use consistent definitions and terminology for articles about places in New Zealand
  • using local government boundaries as our main definition is unsatisfactory, because in general parlance "Auckland" means the greater built-up area
  • coming up with our own boundaries is an option, but it crosses that line to original research which is frowned on in Wikipedia
  • if we lived in Australia or the United States we would be able to use the "metropolitan area" or "statistical division" which is roughly the sum of the local authorities that the urban area sprawls over
  • Statistics New Zealand no longer maintains a concept of "statistical division"

So I think it's reasonable to use the Statistics New Zealand urban area boundaries. These would be best illustrated with a map. But maps have copyright issues. I believe that the data behind a map is not copyright, so extracting the "data" from the Statistics New Zealand maps and then making a new map should be legal. The problem is that their WebMap application uses a non-standard projection which might be part of the copyright they hold over the map. So we'd need to extract the boundary co-ordinates from their projection and reconstruct the map in a generic projection.

Alternatively, and probably more legally, we could construct a new map that doesn't precisely follow their boundaries but gives an indication of where the boundary lies. I'm tempted to do that this weekend. But no promises!

Ben Arnold 21:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm coming in even later. I'd suggest we follow the Auckland Urban Area as defined in Statistics NZ's 2002 Regional Summary publication (at least until their approach for the 2006 Census becomes clear). This area is divided into four zones: Northern, Western, Central and Southern Auckland. (Profiles of the zones, including links to maps, are listed here.) The Auckland Urban Area includes the Hibiscus Coast, Kumeu, Ardmore, Papakura and Drury, so it encompasses Papakura as well as the four main city councils, and stretches beyond into the Rodney and Franklin districts. It does not include Pukekohe, Waiuku, Waiheke, Helensville or Warkworth (which are the other urban areas within the Auckland region) or Muriwai (which is classified as a rural centre). -- Avenue 12:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I should explain my reasons further. First, Stats NZ's Auckland Urban Area lines up pretty well with my sense of what Auckland covers, at least on the boundaries I'm most familiar with (the north and west). For instance, to the north I would not think of Whangaparoa, Orewa, Hatfields Beach or even Waiwera as being outside Auckland. Likewise I would find it odd to exclude Kumeu in the northwest. I guess I tend to be more inclusive than Nurg above.
Second, even if there is some discomfort with some aspects of the official definition, I think using an official definition has compensating advantages (such as easy access to population figures, and reducing debates like this). If there were some parts of the definition we strongly disagreed with (e.g. including the Gulf islands), it would probably be worth mentioning these briefly in the text. -- Avenue 12:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
The only Gulf island that seems to be included in the Auckland Urban Area is Tiritiri Matangi Island, so I think the comment I made before about the islands muddies the waters more than it helps. Please ignore it. -- Avenue 13:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
It's been a year since this thread started, and the article is still inconsistent. We should fix this. Unless anyone objects, I will change the intro to match Statistics NZ's Auckland Urban Area (which agrees with Nurg's suggestion of "Auckland City (excluding the Hauraki Gulf islands), North Shore, Papakura, the urban parts of Waitakere and Manukau, and some urban parts of Rodney and Franklin"). -- Avenue 10:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes I would support the use of stats nz boundaries, it was really interesting to read those comments about web map a few years back, I was responsible for the NZ end of that project for 2 years and it seems pretty standard to me. WGS84 is close enough to NZTM/GD2000 and whatever, who cares, a lat/long is physically at the same place if you go there with a gps, doesnt matter how you distort the map representation of it using projections. LINZ The stats map is ALL about data, and that is in fact licensed to users, but the key issue is that the boundaries are lines specified as a database of lengths, angles, start and end points as lat/longs. Its that data that you cant just throw around without care for the license, of course you must adhere to the terms and conditions of use. You can redraw the lines as a graphic that doesnt have the underlying line data available, and place the demographic numbers you mine off the stats site, and thats not too hard. If you want to use or share census data bought from Stats NZ under licence, thats different, you must adhere to the terms and conditions. The webmap is a specific and separate copyright issue, to protect the valuable digital cartographic IP that went into creating it, just like any creative work. The whole pricing and licensing of Statistics NZ data is currently under revue by the Government, and we hope that the costs and terms of use are lowered somewhat. The boundaries are created in a strict geographical interlocking and staged hierarchy, matching the databases, and that is the standard out here in the community of NZ. I would like to see that we adhere to one standard method for NZ, and that is clearly Statistics NZ, in my considered opinion. yes, no original research, then its easy. My company does original research though, and I suppose if I published that we could use it. I am intensely interested in Auckland demographics so maybe when the new data arrives, i'll make some cool eye candy for release.moza 14:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Is any part of Franklin District really in the Auckland Metropolitan Urban Area? Jarbury 21:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the 2001 Stats NZ definition, two small parts of Franklin District are part of the Auckland Urban Area. They are the Area Units called Whangapouri Creek and Runciman, located west and south of Papakura respectively. Here's a map. -- Avenue 10:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Minor changes justified

mainly used by non-Aucklanders

I removed this from "So Ponsonby" because I have never heard the term used (being a non-Aucklander) and if it is mainly used by non-Aucklanders then is it an "Auckland term"? I'm dubious about the encyclopaedic nature of idioms such as these anyway.

Ben Arnold 21:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I've certainly never heard the term - I had to look the article up to find out what it meant. I suspect it's actually one more often used by Aucklanders than non-Aucklanders (either that or its a neologism invented by whoever added it to the article!) Grutness...wha? 22:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Ditto, I have never heard of it, and I have lived in Auckland for the past 8 years. Onco_p53 23:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Wasn't Ponsonby often called the gay part of Auckland? That would make some 'sense' for it to be used in referring to stuff people considered 'gay' (which is still often used as a swearword for 'strange' or 'stupid', nowadays...) Max robitzsch 12:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Landmarks

Does Botany Town Centre, Howick count as a notable landmark or place in Auckland? A new anonymous user appeared to have deleted it in vandalism but I don't know whether it should be there anyway.

If it is indeed the largest outdoor shopping complex in the Southern Hemisphere, as its article claims, then it is unquestionably a notable place in Auckland. If that claim can't be substantiated, then perhaps it should be moved up to the Leisure section, along with other shopping centres. It might not be a bad idea to put it there anyway.-gadfium 22:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Does just being large make this shopping complex notable? I removed Botany Town Centre, Howick from the Landmarks section for two reasons. First, I don't think that just having lots of shops makes the site notable. Second, the blurb for the article read like a press release. Botany Downs is a very new development so isn't a heritage site. Also, there are not any public spaces of special merit - parks, scenic views, architecture etc. In hindsight, rather than deleting the entry I should have suggested that it be moved to the Leisure section. Does anyone have any comments on this suggestion? --Caltho12 01:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Ugh, Botany isn't "notable" in that sense! When family come over to AKL I wouldn't dream of telling them to "go to Botany"... St Lukes maybe but I wouldn't call either of them notable. 130.216.191.184 04:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

And why would St. LUKES be notable? ;-) Ah, I don't think either of them is notable unless you write up 'Malls of Auckland' (which I am not opposed to in the long run, but not as normal landmarks). Max robitzsch 12:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Auckland map

I've uploaded a map of the urban area at Image:Aucklandmap.png (and added it to the article). I intend to use it as a template for some other articles about Auckland places. Feel free to use it for the same thing if you want! Grutness...wha? 09:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Asian population

I modified the following sentence

An almost equally large proportion of the population is made up of people of Asian origin (mainly East Asian)

to include South Asian. I can't find any statistic for Auckland per se but the 2001 figures show East Asian (Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Taiwanese Chinese, I excluded Vietnamese but they wouldn't change things that much anyway) only make up 133k/237k of the Asian population nationwide which was something like what I expected. I would hardly call that mainly especially as Indian is 60k. Nil Einne 17:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Overlander train stops

I don't really like this template on the bottom of the page. It could go on the Britomart Transport Centre article; that would be fine. For (greater) Auckland, it takes up a lot of space to little purpose. For comparison, we don't put an Air New Zealand template on every destination Air NZ flies to. I suspect for most of the cities the template has been placed on, it won't be terribly appropriate.-gadfium 08:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, it's been removed after I put a message on the originator's talk page.-gadfium 08:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Social perceptions section - removed

I'm sorry but this ridiculous POV section with the various alleged social stereotypes of each geographic Auckland location had to go. This is what it said:

Aucklanders are viewed with varying degrees of dislike by some New Zealanders living outside Auckland. One perception of Aucklanders is that they are rich latte-sipping yuppies, with trendy but impractical political views. Some claim jokingly that Aucklanders think that "New Zealand stops at the Bombay Hills", the Bombay Hills forming the Auckland region's southern boundary. Some people living south of the hills agree with the statement, but regard "true" New Zealand as lying south, not north, of the hills. The word Jafa was coined as an insulting nickname for Aucklanders, but Aucklanders have robbed the word of its sting by enthusiastically embracing it.

If someone can seriously put forward an argument as to how this isn't POV, show correct references and exactly how this deserves to be in an encyclopedia I'd love to hear it. - Glen TC (Stollery) 06:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Attractions and Landmarks in Auckland

This article was split from the Auckland article by Jackp (talk · contribs) without discussion, and is now nominated for deletion. Should we have this material as part of the Auckland article, as a standalone article, or not at all?-gadfium 05:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Definitely keep it here for now, IMO. The article's not that long yet, and it seems to fit in nicely. -- Avenue 08:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't really do much for the article, it doesn't say anything, apart from "popular places". So I think take it out or create a new page for it!Jackp 12:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC) No one has replied and it's been more than 2 weeks and no one has replied, therefor I'll create a new page, that's longer as well. Jackp 11:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Your original split of this material went through Afd; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attractions and Landmarks in Auckland. There's lots of discussion there, with a near unanimous agreement that this material should not be split from Auckland.-gadfium 19:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Does anybody think that the hunua ranges or ardmore airshow should go in this section? I think that they are quite exciting for auckland. --HannahSamuels 22:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe I recently deleted the Ardmore airshow - because it is an event (and only a biannual one at that) and not an attraction in the sense of a physical location. If you'd like this included, maybe move it into a subsection like lifestyle. As for the hunua ranges, maybe. But then, we do not have the Waitakeres as an AUCKLAND attraction - rather noted in parks and nature as something close by... MadMaxDog 05:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Population figure

Someone replaced the urban area population figures for Auckland and Wellington with figures for the Auckland and Wellington regions. I've reverted those changes.

Urban areas are defined to cover the urban sprawl of cities and towns in New Zealand. This includes the urban parts of subsidiary local authorities in the greater area, but excludes rural parts of cities and districts. The regional figure on the other hand refers to the entire subnational local government unit (equivalent to Canterbury or the Bay of Plenty) and includes rural areas, small towns and offshore islands. In the case of Auckland, outlying areas such as Helensville, Wellsford, Waiuku and Great Barrier Island are part of the Region but well outside the contiguous urban sprawl and should not be included in a figure for the population of Auckland. In the case of Wellington, the Wairarapa is included in the regional figure — separated from the urban sprawl by peaks nearly a kilometre above sea level.

It's unfortunate for our purposes that provisional census results have not yet been aggregated to the urban area level but we'll just have to wait. The correct place for the regional population figure is the article about the local government region (Auckland Region or Wellington Region).

Ben Arnold 09:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually Ben, the provisional results have been released at area unit level, and that could be re-calculated using suitable boundaries, perhaps the last urban boundaries that are few years old, but hard to justify for a free article. Statistics New Zealand recently supplied my company the national data (you can mine it off the web but there are 2000 files to join) and the AU boundary file is free off the web, so I could make a thematic map that would be quite informative, but I dont know how to give it copyright free. Even though its all available for free off the Government website, I believe that it still must have a source declaration, but I may be wrong. I wonder if anyone can clarify this, I can always include the notice in the body of the image. Maybe I could simply redraw the boundaries as a 'smoothed' graphic, and give that.

Another possibility is to place it on one of my own web sites, and have a link to the images, but thats less effective. I would like to give something at some stage though, to help people understand this area of my interest, as I see you and others are interested for sure. I'm also really interested in the population changes and displaying that characteristic as a colour for each area. Another possibility for an 'Auckland' population figure is to combine the relevant city (T/A) population data? that would miss some of the sprawl i guess, the urban map looks like it bulges out from the T/A's in places, and it sucks in around the city contained rural areas, but it would be quite close i am thinking. your thoughts? moza 13:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I had wondered about doing that (aggregating the area unit figures) too. I think combining Stats NZ's population figures according to their area definitions, and putting the results on Wikipedia, would not violate copyright because you are transforming the information in a non-trivial way, not simply copying it. (But IANAL.) Doing this might however be seen as original research and thus against Wikipedia policy. Personally I think it's not "original" enough to really be original research, but some might disagree. Producing a "smoothed" map is another issue; I haven't thought that one through. By the way, our current map does not match Stats NZ's definition of the Auckland urban area, so don't base your decisions on how it looks. -- Avenue 11:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I just remembered that there is a good reason for not doing this. The population estimate currently shown in our article should be more accurate, even though it is nine months further out of date, because it adjusts for net census undercount (of about 3%) and for residents who are temporarily overseas, and does not include temporary visitors. (See [1] for details.) All but the last point also apply to the final Census figures coming out in November. So it would also be best to keep using population estimates even when the final Census figures become available. -- Avenue 22:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
yes, i agree, in some ways. The urban boundary is in digital form and could be used, but then the count is fixed in time! (census 2006) and the boundary is 2001 so thats not a good plan. I need to look at the accuracy of the estimates more, but if Stats are publishing that, then i say good enough. Original research is only if unpublished elsewhere, and I can publish it on a mapping company site that can be referenced so its no longer original. I'll ask for the new urban boundaries, Stats are really good, they always help as much as they can. The old one is viewable on webmap, by panning around you can determine the extents. The inter-city data and maps are always the hardest to organise as they need communication with several T/A's and thats time consuming and often expensive, so we dont do much of it. cheers.moza 07:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

List of suburbs

Someone has added a long list of suburbs. Should we merge these into the articles for the appropriate cities or districts? This seems to have been the approach taken before (see the first comment by Neonumbers in the Talk:Auckland#.22Avoid_lists.22 section above). -- Avenue 09:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I see gadfium deleted it while I was writing this. That's fine with me. -- Avenue 09:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
It certainly doesn't belong in this article. I think long lists like this are ugly. The list is already contained in slightly more readable format in the various city articles. (and I edit conflicted with you when I wrote this - then went on to other tabs and didn't notice this hadn't been saved)-gadfium 09:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Mission Bay is not within North Shore City

As the subject says; North Shore City is north of the city centre - Mission Bay is to the south. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.234.152.147 (talk • contribs) .

Well spotted. And that view isn't from Mission Bay at all. I'd guess somewhere near Okahu Bay. -- Avenue 13:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Greater city calls

There are perpetual calls for a greater Auckland city, especially in the media and especially in light of this [2] should we add something (doesn't have to be much, just one or two lines) somewhere (perhaps the Auckland region article) about this movement? Obviously if this develops we will need to add it at some stage but IMHO, we can probably add something now. Nil Einne 23:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

this is just continued thoughts along the lines of what had already been happening of smaller ones joining up within auckland. For instance Papatoetoe no longer exists, but has instead disappeared inside manukau city. An unfortunate development I suspect. Mathmo Talk 04:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Sister Cities

If someone could find the dates the twin city relationships were established that would be great --Davidkazuhiro

AFAIK Auckland has no twin/sister cities. Auckland City does of course, as does Waitakere City and I assume Manukau City and North Shore City... Nil Einne 09:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Attractions and landmarks

I've always felt this section needed to be integrated into the body of the article, so following on from a suggestion at the current peer review, I've done so. The result is to strengthen the Leisure and Sports sections.- gadfium 01:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

As stated with a little more detail in my comment on gadfiums discussion page, I disagree with that move. I think that section was way more than 'just a list'. It was well written, succinct info collected under a good theme '(physical) landmarks and attractions'.
In fact, I am thinking of reverting the edits. But I'd like to hear people's comments beforehand. MadMaxDog 05:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Quite a lot of the list was duplicated in the rest of the article already, although in some cases in less detail. I would prefer material to be in the form of paragraphs rather than bulleted lists, and I'm using Wikipedia:Embedded list as my guideline. However, I'll restore the list for the time being (while keeping my changes to other sections), so people can easily see the differences while the discussion takes place.- gadfium 05:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I won't be objecting if most other people prefer it to be removed. MadMaxDog 05:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Gadfium, most of the imformation is already mentioned throughout the article and it serves no purpose. Maybe it would be of more use on Wikitravel, but I think it has no place here. (Actually I just checked and there already is something similar there wikitravel:Auckland#See)--Konst.able 06:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Any more feedback on this section? I'm reluctant to remove it again over MadMaxDog's objections without more support, and if other people want it kept, I'll happily drop the matter.-gadfium 08:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Gadfium, as those who DID comment favored your point, I won't protest at you taking it out. Just make sure that everything is covered in the article itself (though as far as I know, you did). MadMaxDog 08:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks MMD, but two to one is not really consensus. Even with Fsotrain's comment at the peer review, that's still very minimal numbers, so I'd like to see another one or two editors express an opinion.-gadfium 18:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Auckland vs Auckland City

While the intro explains fairly well what the difference is betweem Auckland (as discussed in this article) and Auckland City, parts of it appear to confuse the difference. While most Aucklanders and kiwis in general may understand what's being said, I suspect many others might get confused. As such, I would like to suggest we always refer to Auckland City rather then just Auckland when referring to the city in particular except when it's completely unnecessary (for example there's a reference to downtown Auckland, we don't need to refer to Auckland City here since downtown Auckland is downtown Auckland City). I would also suggest someone go through the article and ensure we are clear on precisely what we're talking about. For those not sure what I'm talking about I'll give two examples. A while back I moved a bit on sister cities to the Auckland City article. And I also earlier improved this potentially confusing sentence "and making Auckland one of the best-earning cities in New Zealand with a median personal income per year of NZ$ 22,300 (2001), behind only North Shore City and Wellington." to make it clear it was talking about Auckland City Nil Einne 09:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree. Not even an issue we need to discuss much, IMHO. Did the same 'sister city' thing just recently too (moving it over), in fact. There's always gonna be somebody new to the article who doesn't see the difference yet. MadMaxDog 11:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
This struck me too, I hope someone took care to ensure the various statistics listed were derived from figures relating to the exact area covered by this article (eg ethnic breakdown) - no refs given. As this is not an article about Auckland City, should not 'facts' like "country's most cosmopolitan city" (under culture) or "crime (which is still low for a city of its size)" (under lifestyle) be converted to ones about the region (and checked they actually apply to the region as a whole). Are there not different ethic distributions and crime rates between the city and the area as a whole (eg more lower income families live outside the city than in). Do factoids just relating to one area belong in an article about the region? ---AGoon 01:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
While I agree with you in general (and especially in terms of info that might only apply to Auckland City or the even the CBD), not all statistics will always use the same area for their base. I think that in many cases, they should still be included, even if one or the other includes this or excludes that. For example, do many statistics include the Hauraki Gulf Islands, which in many ways are part of Auckland? If they do or if they don't, is this cause enough to remove them? I think. MadMaxDog 07:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
If its not liable to affect the stats much then not a problem (due to their relatively small population they won't affect the stats much). I'm thinking of stats for the city that don't include the south auckland suburbs/cities - eg there might be significant differences between the city's and overall region's crime rate and income stats.
(PS re links: I'd unlinked Waitemata Harbour simply because it had been wiki-linked two paragraphs before, but you're right, I was probably over zealous ;-) --AGoon 09:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
As a totally non-referenced statement, I do believe that even Southern Auckland / Manukau has relatively low crime rates compared to many third-world or American cities known as crime-ridden. But I get your point. MadMaxDog 09:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Auckland vs Sydney

Do other people here also feel that Auckland and Sydney share many similarities, both superficial (harbour city with its main CBD south of a long bay heading inland, ferry transport, sea-'themed' recreation) and maybe deeper? I found the resemblance striking, having been only a week in Sydney last year. MadMaxDog 07:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

nah, there is nothing surprising about it. Is natural for many cities to form around harbours for instance. Many other similarities are due to them being just across the ditch, no surprises there either they should then be so similar. Mathmo Talk 04:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"City of Sails"

Shouldn't this go somewhere in the opening para ?? Isn't that one of the informal names that Auckland is known as ? --Biatch 07:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It is in the Leisure section - personally I do not think it is THAT important, even though it is a relatively official slogan (which some currently intend to change). MadMaxDog 09:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

What? Really? Slum Tenements?

Auckland has "genuine slum tenements in the lower income neighbourhoods"? Where? Moriori 22:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Haven't seen any, but then I am new to Auckland. "Slum tenements" brings things to mind other than state or beneficiary housing, though. Run-down residential buildings ain't automatically slums. MadMaxDog 05:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
And neither are they tenements. Moriori 05:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Public transport

Have a mind to revert the 'expensive' part about Auckland public transport, but then I am from Europe, where the same trip easily costs twice or more. What do the locals think about the prices? MadMaxDog 05:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I did a quick skim though some of the other public transport articles and Auckland didn't seem much higher. I pay $99 per month for unlimited bus travel in the isthmus and have a bus very 5-10 minutes during peak and 20 minutes offpeak where I live. Just getting parking in town is $5 per day so I don't really thinking people are using cars because it costs less than buses. - SimonLyall 06:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


The main problem with Auckland's public transport originates from the very dispersed nature of the city coupled with it's geographical layout. Compared to European cities, it has a very low population density and the numerous estuaries and peninsula (peninsuli?) make the basic transport logistics quite poroblematic. There's also been little investment in public transport infrastructure (New Zealand's not a rich country to start with) which doesn't help - although this is now changing. So you end up choosing between sitting in your own car in a traffic jam - or sitting in a bus in a traffic jam. It's got almost nothing to do with cost - it's just more convenient and more comfortable - and the additional cost is woirth it.Malathos 07:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Would disagree with the 'not a rich country' part. Surely, per capita, NZlers are in the top 20-30%, worldwide? MadMaxDog 08:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
According to Statistics NZ, "NZ in the OECD", NZ has a 23,200 US Dollar per year purchasing power. The OECD, which is not exactly a poor nations club (as it says in the Wikipedia entry, it is an organisation of DEVELOPED nations) has an average of 26,300. So maybe NZ has not the large capital base, but it certainly could afford first-class public transport. The will (and public interest, to be sure) wasn't there in the last decades. Also as stated earlier, Auckland DOES have a low density, which is always a killer for comparative efficiency of public transport. MadMaxDog 08:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Auckland Super-City

I've just discovered this article and... well, it needs some work, to say the least. It is in danger of being a fork of the Auckland urban area article, though I can see the point of it, given recent talk of the authority merger. Anyone interested in trying to do something with this article, please take a look... Grutness...wha? 08:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I've prodded it. The idea of the authority merger was ditched [3] very quickly.- gadfium 19:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm a bit of two minds on deleting this (but then I'm inclusionist). Wasn't the Super-City mooted in the past? Isn't it likely to come up again (be it in 5 months or 5 years? I think it might make sense - if somebody cleans it up - am I the only one who sees a weird boxed jumble with ALL the text on the right in that article, BTW? MadMaxDog 09:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps a little section on government in this article can cover it. Also things like the ARC, ARA etc? - SimonLyall 11:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I've fixed the most immediate layout problem, but I don't want to spend time making the article look pretty if it's going to be deleted. The deletion will happen automatically unless someone wants to save it, which can be done simply by removing the prod tag. I won't then nominate the article for AfD, unless it fails to improve for a lengthy time.-gadfium 18:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

No one objected to the prod, so the article has been deleted.-gadfium 03:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Knee-jerk defensiveness

Okay, I have placed a 'sprotected' tag on the article, as I felt that this might stop the current tendency of (I'd assume) new users from deleting content and putting in unreferenced relativizing comments.

Okay, didn't work. MadMaxDog 11:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I feel this is getting a bit heated, and would like some discussion (including on whether I/we handle this right in reverting it all). My main point is: Auckland HAS massive traffic problems. I may be in the midst of the business (working in a major traffic planning company right here), and I know this pretty well, both from a personal as well as a technical viewpoint.

But more so, so does the 'average' Aucklander. Many of my NZ friend - not connected to the traffic planning world at all - joke about and denigrate Auckland's traffic problems. I personally feel that there is no reason to "defend" Auckland from this fact, and neither is there a need for reflexively adding "but it is even worse elsewhere" to all such mentions. MadMaxDog 11:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

MadMaxDog Well sunshine I do feel the need to defend Auckland and Aucklands traffic problems.I am a born and bred Aucklander who has lived in london for the past 20 years and can tell you that the traffic congestion in Auckland (last time I visited Sept 2005)is as I stated on a par with other cities of the same size(about the the same as Birmingham) and I personally feel that there is a need for reflexively adding "it is worse elsewhere" because of course it is.If you do work for a major traffic planning company then wouldn't you say from your own comments that you're doing a particularly bad job.Nice of you to put a sprotected tag on the article.Shows what freedom Wikipedia has. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hickkiwi1a (talk • contribs).

Please avoid using emotional and unquantifiable terms such as "most enjoyable city" in the article. For the article to mention traffic problems is sensible, and adding "(compared to other New Zealand cities)" is implicitly to say that in some overseas cities traffic may be even worse. I see no value in spelling this out.-gadfium 19:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

gadfium Yes yes I will avoid using emotional and unquantifiable terms such as "most enjoyable city" (this is so sensible) as long as you in all your power can get the entire Wikipedia editors to stop being emotional as well.It is completely true to mention the fact that traffic congestion in Auckland is only on a par with other cities of the same size and is of course nowhere near as bad as much bigger cities eg London.I see all the value in pointing this out.

Hickkiwi, thanks for the little ad hominem there. I didn't know that one year after graduation, I personally was responsible for Auckland's traffic problems. Especially as I always try to convince clients of public transport's importance (which is rather hard, because what does a developer care?) and also seeing that I do not own a car.
I'll freely admit that I have not lived in London. But I know that in London, I can get public transport at night. I know that in London, there are subways, where in Auckland walking a km at journey's end and beginning seems normal. Motor transport may be the same or not, I'll not claim to know, but again, Auckland's congestion is a fact, one often talked and complained about.
My main point is really that you went far beyond changing the emphasis of some paragraphs. You deleted references (such as those about urban density, and the link to the ACC webpage talking about the dissatisfaction of Aucklanders (not NON-Aucklanders as you like to claim)) and you made what I still consider 'surplus' comments, because they add nothing to the article except state that other cities have transport problems too. Why not try to find some quantifiable references on the comparative quality of transport (for example showing typical delays - or who even just comment on it similar to your POV)?
As for freedom on Wikipedia, Wikipedia is free to edit (and I agree that my try at placing a protect tag was misplaced) but that does not mean that content is decided on by single individuals. I was not the only one reverting your stuff. I simply happened to be there yesterday and we had a short edit war. To stop that, I started this discussion here. MadMaxDog 23:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

MadMaxDog I'll have to admit this is an interesting debate.Now here's what I find strange ..an individuals interpretation of reality given the environment they are enclosed in(No disrespect here).Transport around London and other big cities (and there are many of course around the world)is horrendous.In Londons case regardless of whether or not you are travelling by tube(in rush hour.. they actually stop at 12 midnight)bus,car and even walking sometimes through crowded streets malls is/can be extremely difficult and frustrating even at night and not really adviseable-get a cab.In the London metro area it is many many times worse than Auckland.You really need to experience this. London has done EVERYTHING possible(They have huge teams and organisations of people working on this from all over the world) to help reduce congestion on all fronts and is still doing so and it is still at a stand still.Average traffic speed in London is 25mph the same as it was 110 years ago-think about that.Bottom line..you can't do anything much.Its against the laws of physics.In Aucklands case I'll bet as soon as they build this road or that or build a subway.. after a certain amount of time you'll be right back to where you started from ie congestion.This is what you have to put up with living in a city.I've travelled the world my friend and Aucklands congestion is par for the course thats why I believe it should be stated.Just like to point out travelling by tubes is a miserable experience.Conclusion if you want to live in a city accept it or move out..And OK some of the deletions were unnecessary.

New panorama picture

Click on it. On the wiki page of the image, do you people get it correctly? I don't. I can only see it again once I click for the high-resolution version. MadMaxDog 04:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I can see it on the Auckland page, and on the high-resolution page. I don't see it on the page in between (which isn't all that unusual in itself, except I still can't see it after I've gone to the high resolution version). I don't see that as a reason not to include the reduced version in the article.-gadfium 05:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
To be honest, I would see it as a reason. I also would like to increase the size of the thumb so that it can be seen a bit better in the article. Is there a way to fix the problem? You say its not that unusual?MadMaxDog 09:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
There is something different about this image; I can see MediaWiki trying to render it, then giving up. My guess is that the image servers are too busy to resize such a large image in some given time, so they give up. Sometimes they do have time, so the image is resized and cached, and then there's no problems until someone wants a different resolution again. I had no trouble just now resizing it to 450 px, but I couldn't get a couple of other options I tried.-gadfium 18:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Auckland Wiki external link?

Didn't that get deleted earlier due to being mostly dead? What is the general opinion on that? I'm not generally opposed to it, but it should be a helpful site, and I can't see using it anyway (rather edit everything here - they ARE a sort of competition after all). MadMaxDog 07:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, I deleted it when the link was dead. Now that it's revived, I'm inclined to tolerate it. I contributed a little bit to it earlier. It isn't really competition to Wikipedia, because it doesn't have the same rules about NPOV as we do (I think). If someone was to delete the link, I wouldn't restore it, but I wouldn't delete it either so long as the site stays up and non-commercial, and there isn't an edit war over the inclusion of the link.-gadfium 08:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)