Talk:Auckland

Commas missing from 7 digit population figure

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

The template used, Template:NZ population data, states explicitly "The template data uses formatted text numbers, with the comma thousands separator..." which is either wrong or relies on the input data containing the commas! User:Avenue is the last to update the template so they should now how to fix it. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I have left a note for Avenue, who may be on holiday at present. Nurg (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Auckland Climate

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

I would think they are in http://cliflo.niwa.co.nz. Registration at this site is free, but for some reason it is not accepting my login at the moment. Although a site which does not require registration would be easier to use as a reference, a site which is not accessible at all from the relevant country is not a good reference. However, you could see if Bing Weather gives its source.-gadfium 06:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The site has errors. I only found that one, Meoweather. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I managed to get a new login to niwa last night - my old one just returned an error message. This morning, the new one does too. In the interim I poked around but couldn't get it to produce a report of record temperature by month for Auckland. It's almost certainly in there somewhere, but given the difficulty of the NIWA interface I think just using Meoweather is fine.-gadfium 02:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Auckland metropolitan area - inconsistency

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

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

So there seem to be a few options:

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

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

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

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

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

Cityscape/Image skyline

Better image

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

Auckland waterfront skyline (CBD)

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

We already have about around 4-6 wide shots of the CBD (depends how you count them) in the article. I don't think two more is a great improvement. I'm not sure what you mean by "shady" but if you want to replace specific photos in the infobox then go ahead. Please remember though that Auckland is not just the CBD so having nothing but photos of tall buildings (plus the skytower of course) isn't really the whole city. - SimonLyall (talk) 06:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I just believe that the quality of the images were a little poor. There were really only 2 shots of the CBD, and believe me I know there is much more to Auckland. However I just felt that a simple well quality skyline would better replace the current infobox montage. Thanks! --Mick man34 ♣ (talk) 13:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

A few comments

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

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

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

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