Talk:Auckland

Sunshine hours

I have added sunshine hours, didn't think anyone would mind too much? Same source as the rest of the climate data. Kahuroa (talk) 10:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Article for the Auckland super city

What to do with certain Auckland articles after 1 November 2010 when the "super city" comes into being and certain existing authorities cease and become historic entities. At present we have articles:

• Auckland Region
• Auckland Regional Council
• Auckland City
• Auckland City Council
• Auckland (currently about the Auckland metropolitan area)
• Auckland Council

The main outcome we need is an article for the area governed by the new Auckland Council. The logical name for this article would be simply "Auckland". At present the article by the name "Auckland" covers only the metropolitan area and not the rural areas.

I suggest that the scope of the Auckland article be expanded to include the rural areas, and that the Auckland Region article be merged into it. The Auckland Regional Council article would remain as a record of the so-named "Auckland Region".

Other ideas? Nurg (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest the current Auckland City be renamed Auckland (city) or, to be more accurate but more cumbersome, something like Auckland City (1871 - 2010). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think the Auckland article should continue to be about the metropolitan area, not the unitary authority that will contain and govern it, because I believe that is its most common meaning. We already have an article on the new Auckland Council, and I think the Auckland Region article provides a sensible geographical complement to that. We could keep our Auckland City and Auckland City Council articles to cover historical matters (as well as Manukau City, Rodney District, etc), but this material might be better merged into our list of former territorial authorities in New Zealand. I think the Auckland Regional Council article should be merged into the Auckland Council article, with a historical section covering both the ARA and the ARC. This would be similar to the ARA's current treatment within the Auckland Regional Council article. --Avenue (talk) 03:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

To clarify the distinction, I don't think that many of the outlying towns and rural areas within the new Auckland Region are included in the common meaning of "Auckland" (e.g. Wellsford, the Awhitu Peninsula), and nor is Great Barrier Island. --Avenue (talk) 10:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I would have Auckland covering the metropolitan area, Auckland region covering the entire council area (in the same scope as Auckland), and Auckland Council covering the government side - like London, Greater London, and Greater London Authority - similar to Avenue's suggestion. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 02:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. So we would rename Auckland Region to Auckland region. "Auckland region" matches the capitalisation used in the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Act 2009 and "Auckland Region" ceases to exist on 1 Nov. And Auckland continues to cover the metropolitan area. Nurg (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The Auckland City article had not been updated, so I've leapt in changing the tense from present to past in the introduction. Jlittlenz (talk) 11:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

And I've finally merged the Auckland Regional Council article into Auckland Council. --Avenue (talk) 00:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Avenue, the ARC merge is in my opinion not a particularly desirable move at all - and an actual merge is not covered in the discussion above either. The history of Auckland Regional Council is sufficiently large and long to deserve it's own article. We are already getting an Auckland Council article that is so extremely long we will have to start looking at splitting it off into subsections soon! So I have reversed the merge insofar as restoring the ARC stand-alone article, and left a summary of the ARC only in place at the Auckland Council article. Cheers, Ingolfson (talk) 10:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The merge was covered explicitly in my first post in this section. Quote: "I think the Auckland Regional Council article should be merged into the Auckland Council article, with a historical section covering both the ARA and the ARC. This would be similar to the ARA's current treatment within the Auckland Regional Council article." Okay, no one responded specifically to that point, but I don't see why you say it wasn't covered.

Yes, the Auckland Council article does seem a bit long. Most of its bulk is in the list of local board members and the coverage of controversies around its establishment (especially CCOs). I think these should be split off. The CCO controversies especially seem to get undue weight, considering we don't even cover important issues like the loss of the Hunua dams to the Waikato Region. I also think that following your merge reversal, the History section is now too myopic, as it covers nothing before 1989. No offence to the ARC, but I think it presided over more an ongoing evolution of what went before than a revolution, and some coverage of earlier history is necessary to explain the current Auckland Council's assets. Anyway, perhaps we should discuss all these details at Talk:Auckland Council, instead of here.

I think a central discussion what we do for our articles on the former territorial authorities and their councils still makes sense. (These are Auckland City, Manukau City, Waitakere City, North Shore City, Papakura District, Rodney District, Franklin District, Auckland City Council and Auckland Regional Council.) There's currently some discussion underway at Talk:Papakura District and a recent discussion of related categories at Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board#Category:Districts of New Zealand, as well as this discussion here. (On the noticeboard, it's been suggested we could rename some district categories to the corresponding local wards that have replaced them, although none of the correspondences are exact.) These articles are now in disrepair; they do acknowledge their status as former authorities early on, but do not use past tense throughout. Some of the information they hold is about the area, and some is about the authority. I still favour merging most of the details about the former authorities into the list of former territorial authorities in New Zealand, or possibly into Auckland Council for the ACC and ARC. --Avenue (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Elliot Tower???

I am a bit suspicious about the license of that image to start with (though it COULD be someone's own take on the proposed design) - but is it appropriate for the Auckland article to show a skyscraper design with an image as if it was already built, of a project that has not made any progress since 2009, when it was essentially buried silently in the GFC? I say remove... Ingolfson (talk) 02:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it probably IS someone's private take (or crop & photoshop), because the positioning in the image is wrong - the tower would be, seen from the Mount Eden position, be to the right and slightly behind the Crowne Plaza hotel. It is however shown way too far south (i.e. in the front of the image) to be correct. Another reason for remove, I am afraid. Ingolfson (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

We have no shortage of pictures to illustrate this article. I agree that having an incorrect picture of a proposed project is low priority.-gadfium 03:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I've replaced the image with a historical photo and and one of older housing. I was thinking of 3 photos, one historical, one showing a villa and a 3rd with a modern house/apartment. Not 100% there yet so if you can find a better photo then replace. I took a few photos in Brown St in ponsonby last week so I'll see if they turned out. - SimonLyall (talk)

Population

Auckland has a population of 1.5 million now... I propose I make a change or someone else makes changes to the article referring to this... http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10782565 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.142.195 (talk) 10:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)