Talk:Auckland

Five regions of auckland

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

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

Hibiscus Coast

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

Yes, at least according to Statistics NZ's 2001 Urban Area classification. See my comments above (under Talk:Auckland#Definition.2Fboundaries_of_Auckland_conurbation) for more details. -- Avenue 05:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thats fine. I sort of thought you would know what you were doing. It's just interesting that Auckland urban sprawl is also advancing in official terms ;-) MadMaxDog 05:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly not infallible, so it's good to query my edits if they seem odd. And I'm not claiming that the map is now perfect; the 2001 classification said that Kumeu should be included and Waiheke excluded, for instance. I decided I'd wait and see what the 2006 version says about those parts, before changing them. But the Hibiscus Coast was a big enough omission that I felt I should do something about that. -- Avenue 10:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

So is Waiheke included now? Map shows part in grey (why only the central part, there are a few houses in the west too, aren't there?) and it certainly feels like an Auckland suburb in some ways. MadMaxDog 10:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Based on the list of 2006 urban areas available from Statistics NZ here, I suspect that the definition hasn't changed much since 2001. In particular, it sounds as though all of Waiheke Island is still classed as a separate minor urban area (like Waiuku, Helensville and Warkworth), and that Pukekohe is still classed as a secondary urban area which is also separate from the Auckland urban area. If noone objects, I'll remove the grey shading from Waiheke Island in the map, but I'd rather not change Kumeu until 2006 urban area definitions in terms of area units are freely available from Statistics NZ. -- Avenue 12:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Takanini

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

Climate

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

Will see about it - I think there was something in a comparision site I saw once. MadMaxDog 10:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what MadMaxDog is asking in his edit summary, but the present version is inaccurate - gadfium's version was better in that Auckland is not subtropical - its warm temperate, the temperatures are too low for subtropical. The bit about 20 degree nights is not up to scratch. In general, climate descriptions need to come from authoritative meteorological sources, not the views of the general public or of tourism-related or city-promotion related sites, especially as NZers tend to use the term 'subtropical' very loosely, as the Brits do. (Fiji's tourism industry would suffer if Auckland really was subtropical). Kahuroa 19:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Look at the edits closely, Kahuroa. The edit as of Gadfium was exactly what I was referring to - I did not change it, I only repaired the web cite in the interim until we decided on a revert, rephrase or keep. I have no strong opinion on this, so somebody with more knowledge would better ascertain this. MadMaxDog 07:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, all I was saying in the above was that I think Gadfium's version is better, and why... sorry if that's not what it sounded like Kahuroa 07:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Then go ahead and revert it. I just had done so much reverting recently that I was getting suspicious at myself doing it too quickly (reverting just because I didn't like change in my favorite articles?) MadMaxDog 09:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Done, with minor change for clarity re coastal location. Kahuroa 10:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Education

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not quite convinced that one to-and-fro edit is a sign of a major problem. Why not leave it as is, and see if it really becomes one? MadMaxDog

Metro did a cover story on top schools in Auckland a few months ago (cover had schoolkid models on front), there is some dispute on their methodology. I get the impression it's hard to compare schools due to some doing NCEA and other not, and various different deciles and private vs public. - SimonLyall 10:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"AUCKLAND URBAN AREA"

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

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

Wrong Picture

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

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

Housing

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

Maori name

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

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

Sister cities

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

Were you thinking of Auckland_City#Sister_Cities? -- Avenue 15:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoops. Of course - "Auckland" is NOT a city. (*Wiping egg from his face*). MadMaxDog 12:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

My editing

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

Future growth should not be part of history. Michellecrisp 08:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Michellecrisp, I think its sad that mentioning some of the most fought over planning policies / future issues of this city lets you fall into the trap of "Oh, he must hate this city!" thinking. If anything, I am guilty of overemphasizing stuff because I like this city very much, and want it to change. But I'm open to criticism, as I have hopefully shown.MadMaxDog 09:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that 'Future' and 'History' clash somewhat. However, there is a clear continuum in the section, and I am loath to change that - for a reader, the connection from past (development) to present to future development of the city surely makes most sense in that order, in one section. MadMaxDog 09:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the changes. Article is more NPOV now. no I don't think it's "I hate this city" syndrome just that personal opinion was entering in. this is an encyclopaedia. I don't have a problem with significant issues being presented as long as it conforms to NPOV. as they say there's usually 2 sides to a story. Michellecrisp 11:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Rough guide

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

QUOTE

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

Kind regards,

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

Unquote

Markus, I still disagree with you - if you absolutely want to, reintroduce the link - however, I am sure that over the long or short of it, it will be removed again by others. Rough Guides sell their guides. Their website content (which, if you look closely, is not that extensive on Auckland at all, 1-2 pages), is 90% already in the article. I do not agree with your advertisement argument either - their site is plastered with... ads for the rough guides they are selling!

We would be hyprocrites in allowing Rough Guide links, when at the same time, we delete small websites trying to sell photo prints of commercial photographers - those too, might be argued to have benefit to the users. In fact the photo galleries I am thinking of (and which I deleted when they were spammed all over South Island articles) contained lots of good photos, that were interesting to look at, even in smaller resolution. Didn't matter.

Linking to the wikitravel does not mean anything, because Wikitravel is a wiki - in other words, a cooperative, non-commercial link. Finally, you may check the recent edits - as it turns out, I could actually use the Rough Guide link you gave - it is now in the standard references, as a source for the 'largest Polynesian city in the world' claim. If you feel that other material in the Rough Guide should be in the article, feel free to add and reference it via the standard ref link already there. But I am quite serious about it not having any standing in the external links section. Cheers MadMaxDog 22:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I would add that if we link to Rough Guide, we should also link to every other travel guide site, and that would rapidly overwhelm the article. The solution is for sites to add themselves to DMOZ (which I have no connection to), and for Wikipedia to include a DMOZ link (however, DMOZ seems to be down at the moment).-gadfium 01:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear all,

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

Thanks once again,

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

Auckland Meetup in August

Just thought I'd mention the upcoming August meetup - see Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland 3. Cheers. Ingolfson 09:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Climate chart

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

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

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

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

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

Climate data for Auckland
Month	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Year
Source:

Hey Gadfium, I added that table for a couple of reasons, the previous one didn't do Auckland justice and I was sick of people saying that the weather in London is the same as NZ (maybe only Invercargill...) Anyway I think that alternative that you have put here in the discussion page looks great and should be added. Would be good if rain days could still be kept somewhere within the article. I notice this is the format that London uses for climate and if the old format is being phased out then may as well stay ahead of the curve. Cheers Homesick kiwi 08:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the above is a bit too strong in terms of all the heavy, dominant colours used. Jumps at you a little too much. Also, some of the darker colours make the text hard to read... Ingolfson 11:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

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

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

Yes, that one does seem a bit dark. I've replaced it with the Queen Mary one. -- Avenue 14:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Early Māori and Europeans

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