![]() | This page 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. |
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)
Avenue, is Hibiscus Coast really considered part of the Auckland *Urban* area??? Seems a bit "far out"? MadMaxDog 02:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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).
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 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)
It may be a bit outdated to say that the standard section in Auckland is 1000 metres squared.
I totally agree, so I changed it to read that this WAS traditionally the norm, but then left the bit about how infill housing has changed this. Jimmynzboy ( talk) 04:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
Didn't we have a twinned with section at some point? I am confused. MadMaxDog 11:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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?
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)
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)markrushmore Markrushmore 08:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Auckland | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Climate chart ( explanation) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 |
Mean daily maximum °C | 23.3 | 23.7 | 22.4 | 20.0 | 17.4 | 15.2 | 14.5 | 15.0 | 16.2 | 17.8 | 19.6 | 21.6 | 18.9 |
Mean daily minimum °C | 15.3 | 15.8 | 14.6 | 12.3 | 10.0 | 8.0 | 7.1 | 7.6 | 8.9 | 10.5 | 12.1 | 13.9 | 11.3 |
Average precipitation mm | 75 | 65 | 94 | 105 | 103 | 139 | 146 | 121 | 116 | 91 | 93 | 91 | 1,240 |
Mean daily maximum °F | 73.9 | 74.7 | 72.3 | 68.0 | 63.3 | 59.4 | 58.1 | 59.0 | 61.2 | 64.1 | 67.3 | 70.9 | 66.0 |
Mean daily minimum °F | 59.6 | 60.5 | 58.3 | 54.2 | 50.0 | 46.4 | 44.8 | 45.7 | 48.0 | 50.9 | 53.8 | 57.0 | 52.4 |
Average precipitation inches | 2.95 | 2.56 | 3.70 | 4.13 | 4.06 | 5.47 | 5.75 | 4.76 | 4.57 | 3.58 | 3.66 | 3.58 | 48.82 |
Source: [1] |
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |accessyear=
and |accessmonthday=
(
help)
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)
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)
This article does not meet the Good Article criteria, and will not be listed at the present time. I don't see how it even can be called "A-class", either. There is much work to be done, and the article is largely incomplete. At best, I'd rate it at a mid "B-class", and have removed the "A-class" rankings on the article, as it is a joke to grade this as an "A" (no offense here, but I'm just being honest). I noticed also that the article was subsequently nominated for WP:FAC as well, and listed for peer review. It's not appropriate to nominate for both GA & FA at the same time, as they are two separate processes, with FA being the "best of the best" and GA meaning that it meets some basic standards of an encyclopedia article and has "good" information. Furthermore, it's useless to nominate for both simultaneously because once an article achieves FA status, it's GA status is removed. Most articles usually are not dually-nominated for either FA & PR, or GA & PR, although this is less of an issue because PR does not assign a status to it. But be advised that the PR system in its current state is not working very well, and suffers from a general lack of reviewers. You'll be lucky to receive more than about 1 or 2 comments on the article, and may end up only receiving the automated review, which is next to worthless. But feel free to keep it listed there anyways,... who knows.
I'll try and address most of the issues below, based on the Good Article criteria. So this is a GA Review; although it should also be noted that I obviously do not believe the article meets the Featured Article criteria (which are similar, but far more stringent); so I predict it will fail FAC.
Referencing is insufficient, and is very scarce in sections, with some sections not having any references at all, and there is some important data with no citations at all. There's also quite a few lists in the article as well, which should be converted to prose. The sports section looks like just a collection of random facts rather than a good, well-written section describe sports in the city, and how they relate to the population.
The history section is very short, and is missing a lot of information. It's only got 5 references, with much unsourced. The future growth section should be largely reduced to one or two sentences, and combined with the history section. It is generally advised that articles avoid future population speculation, because they can be very unreliable. An entire section dedicated to this is asking for unfamiliar editors to add to this and make wildly speculative statements.
Instead of two subsections in 'geography' covering 'volcanoes' and 'harbours and gulf', combine this into one section called 'geology', as it's all related to the natural features of the area. The separate subsections are unnecessary. The 'climate' section is good, but absent is information on the 'neighborhoods' or 'cityscape' (major parts of town, how are streets organized, where are the residential, industrial, and commercial parts of town, etc).
The economy section is insufficient. It seems overly broad, beginning with, "Most major international corporations have an Auckland office, as the city is seen as the economic capital of the nation." Which corporations? We should be more specific. Don't list them, but some should be mentioned. A statement like, "The most expensive office space is around..." really doesn't tell much about the actual economy, and is kind of unnecessarily glowing and flowery. Flowery language should generally be avoided.
The last two paragraphs of the education section are just lists in disguise as prose, and "being amongst the most famous" is kind of flowery language again. Editors should really go through the whole article in better detail, looking for more flowerly language. More information on public school systems and private schools, as well as some of the more notable and reputable areas of research for some of the higher education institutions, should be provided.
More flowery language can be seen here: "Positive aspects of Auckland life are its mild climate, plentiful employment and educational opportunities,..." I would also recommend changing the 'lifestyle' to a 'culture' sections. The subsection entitled 'culture' in the 'people' section really deals more with demographics, and should be titled as such (which conforms to the title of most sections in wikipedia articles). Recommend eliminating the 'people' title and calling the section just 'demographics' - religion can become a small subsection under this.
I'm not getting the purpose of the 'housing' section. It seems like it would be better covered as a subsection under geography, and more information should be added regarding all the neighborhoods in the city. It's largely incomplete, though.
The transportation section is confusingly written with multiple third & fourth level headings that are making it look very fragmented and information doesn't tie well to the overall section very well.
The famous sites section is just two lists of some tourist attractions. I would recommend eliminating the section entirely and adding it to the 'culture' section, as cultural attractions. What about adding information on any annual cultural events or fairs in the city?
Lots of information is missing. There is nothing in the article about the city government (government section). There is nothing in the article about local media (newspapers, television, radio stations; media section).
All of the images meet the GA criteria, except that the coat of arms image in the infobox does not have a fair use rationale.
A minor issue is the formatting of the references; they are mainly just external links. Full citation information should be included here (author, title, publisher, date of publication, date of URL retrieval). This is so that, if the URL ever becomes a '404 not found', the reference can still be used to track down & verify the source and do additional research on the article. Please see WP:CITE for more information on formatting references and inline citations in articles.
I would strongly recommend looking at some of the current FA & GA articles in WikiProject Cities as examples. There are also two templates for city articles in that wikiproject as well; although they are geared towards US cities and UK cities, they are likely to still contain good information on improving any city article, and have a good system for the organization of content into sections and/or subsections (though too many subsections are discouraged).
Also, take a look at the manual of style and WP:LEAD, for information on style and the intro section.
I think I've covered the major issues with the article. It may not be complete, but it should be good to get editors started at improving the article up to GA status. Hope this helps! Cheers! Dr. Cash 05:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
The extreme temperatures cited were wrong. Highest temperature is in fact 34.4C at Albert Park and lowest -0.6C. (Font: New Zealand meterological Service,). Also no snow fell at Auckland centre in 1939, just in its suburbs and only for less than a hour wthout any accumulation to the ground. It is worth to point it out otherwise readers may be mislead. Thanks. Maximiliano Herrera. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.9.138.166 ( talk) 10:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Where is the explanation as to why the city is named "Auckland"!!?? This is key information and I find it astonishing that it is not included in such a well developed article. Kotare ( talk) 03:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Anybody agree to adding "Queen City" to the list of nicknames in the infobox? It's still used frequently in news media, so I reckon it should be added. Opinions? Loud noises ( talk) 10:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick note, shouldnt there be some mention of the 2 instances that Auckland hosted the commonwealth games in the past? It seems pretty important to the sport and even history of Auckland. Taifar ious1 05:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Taifar ious1 05:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I would like to propose a new picture for the Infobox. The current one, im sorry to say, is rather boring, I have made 2 possible candidates modelled on the New York City, Chicago and the one I have created for the Los Angeles articles. The proposed photographs are below. Please leave a comment on any changes etc.
Thanks, Taifar ious1 09:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC) - PS, see Las Vegas and San Francisco for other montages i've created for city articles.
The image File:Commonwealth Games Federation Logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 16:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The population has been restored to the estimate supplied by the template for several reasons:
XLerate ( talk) 01:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The article says that Auckland is roughly the same size as London. However, Auckland is 420 square miles compared to London at just under 660 square miles. That means that Auckland is less than 2/3rd the size of London, so to say they're roughly the same size is misleading. Canuck85 ( talk) 23:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
On this page it says that Old Government House, now part of the University of Auckland, is where New Zealand's Parliament met until the Capital moved to Wellington. However, the Parliament website suggests otherwise: http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/AboutParl/HstBldgs/History/Auckland/b/f/f/bfff12414f0a4c8f95ed830798619408.htm
As well, my understanding is that Old Government House is where the Governor (and later Governor-General) used to live when in Auckland (prior to the gifting of Government House Auckland in Mt Eden in the 1960s). See here: http://www.gg.govt.nz/government-house/earlier
I don't have a wiki login, so can someone else update/correct/clarify this?
Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.22.141 ( talk) 22:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
would like to see more related to this in the article, like universities. -- Billymac00 04:57, 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)
A couple of years later, and there is still occasional to-and-fro with people adding schools to the list. I have yet to see anyone politely suggest the addition of a school, as is requested in an html comment in the section. I repeat my suggestion that we remove the list of schools. It could be readded in the form "[reliable source] listed the top schools in Auckland as ... on [date]" if anyone wants to dig up such a source. The Metro magazine article referred to above is perhaps now to old, but it might have updated the list.- gadfium 19:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The picture in this section is of foellinger auditorium, which is nowhere near Auckland at all: It's in Urbana, Illinois.
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
So what's the name of the one the city's on...? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I have removed "Climatic conditions vary in different parts of the city owing to geography such as hills, land cover and distance from the sea, hence unofficial temperature records exist, such as a maximum of 34°C (93.2°F) in West Auckland" - source Auckland enjoys hottest day ever, NZH, 12 February 2009. The Herald does not say that 34 is a record high. It says only that it was higher than the official high that day of 32.4 at Whenuapai. It does not rule out previous higher unofficial temps. In addition, the Whenuapai figure of 32.4 is said by Jim Salinger to equal the previous high, but this is contradicted by "The absolute maximum recorded temperature is 34.4 °C", from the MetService. Pending further reliable sources, I think we should stick with the MetService, rather than the Herald, which is not reliable and may have misquoted Salinger. Nurg ( talk) 11:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
-- Mick man34 ♣ ( talk) 17:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
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, healthcare 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.
Aucland's urban area size is 1086 sq km. And population cant even be theoretically so dense as listed in article.
http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/people_and_communities/geographic-areas/urban-rural-profile/main-urban-areas/people.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.71.47.201 ( talk) 01:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:AucklandPano MC.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 14, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-07-14. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 00:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I've no idea what this means, and I'm a native English speaker. Plain English please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.72.147 ( talk) 17:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
An IP has made the change to subtropical climate, citing a user-created wiki image as a source. While wiki is not self-referencing this NIWA link [2] would seem support the change. Are there, as I suspect, equally valid references to support the previous classification of temperate? DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 11:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
While reading this article a few minutes ago, I found two nearly identical sections: one called "People" and another called "Demography" below it. The demography section was more detailed and included details about ethnic backgrounds, population growth, and religion, but the people section consisted solely of information about ethnic backgrounds, a blank subheading that read "Demographics", and a link to the page " Culture of New Zealand". The people section was also more abridged than the demography section. Maybe the two sections could be merged into one section? Or the people section could be expanded further? Sorry if my post was difficult to understand; this is my first contribution to a Wikipedia talk page. Everyone needs a little Bad Weather. ( talk) 20:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I would question that statement that: "It is not contiguous; the section from Waiwera to Whangaparaoa Peninsula is separate from its nearest neighbouring suburb of Long Bay". That implies that another province lies between, but the land is continuously Auckland. 122.59.83.216 ( talk) 06:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
The article states that "Asians are Auckland's fastest growing ethnic group". But "Asian" is not an ethnic group under any accepted definition. Asia is a continent, Asian a person from that continent. There are many, quite diverse, ethnic groups, there. 122.59.83.216 ( talk) 06:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
What is missing from the city timeline? Please add relevant content. Thank you. -- M2545 ( talk) 11:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
In the first paragraph of the lead, this appears: Auckland also has the largest Polynesian population of any city in the world.[4] The reference, first retrieved in 2010, is now not relevant as it takes the reader to an error page. Akld guy ( talk) 11:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
All of the dollar values cited in the 'Economy' section come from statistics that are now very old, the worst example being from 2001. Somebody with time on their hands might like to update them. Akld guy ( talk) 08:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
All flags under the country sections of NZ on wikipedia are referencing a flag currently under debate for changing the flag in NZ. For example: looking under the Auckland right-hand column shows the incorrect flag for New Zealand in under the map section.
The union jack and southern cross is still the current flag in NZ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.67.46 ( talk) 05:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Many Wikipedia tables include record temps, and this gives a useful feel for temperature variability. 99.190.133.143 ( talk) 20:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Auckland. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The lead image must have the description of the picture, like other cities:
From top, clockwise: Auckland's skyline, building A, building B, etc.
@ldrianyf ^o^ % 02:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Auckland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello all,
Since the Housing section lacked significant material, i have added the following to it regarding special housing.
Many residents in Auckland were facing a housing crisis during the late 2000s. Since the housing in the current market are not affordable for every citizen, the government has had to take certain measures to ensure that every citizen can afford housing. The Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act was passed in 2013 which ensured that a certain percentage (at least 10, but more in certain areas) of houses in certain housing areas were priced at an amount that was considered to be affordable for a household earning what was considered the average income at the time[75]. For example, in the neighborhood of Hobsonville Point it is 20% and those houses are priced below $550,000 to make it affordable for people who earn the average wage[75]. While the program has been in effect for a few years, it is not at the stage where the program is fully functional. Many SHAs have been established and de-established since the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act was passed in 2013. There are still many areas with SHA homes that are not fully functioning as they were meant to or just simply not accessible for their target demographic. There are a few simple explanations for this[75]:
• Not all developments have fully functioning websites as of today • There might not be one person in charge of that particular area that can be contacted • Some developers are not marketing SHA homes as of now • All the homes in a particular area have already been sold
There are still kinks in the system that need to be ironed out by the government as there are still many people who cannot either find or afford homes. Housing has been, however, more affordable for certain demographics than it has ever been. The Housing Legislation Amendment Act was passed in parliament in 2016 as an amendment to the Housing Accords and Special Areas of 2013[75]. This amendment was meant to make the parameters to classify SHA homes in certain areas more flexible[75]. The population of Auckland will need more houses in the future due to its growing population - 53,000 people moved into the city between June 2014 and June 2015[76].
Oparano2 ( talk) 08:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello all,
I've added information under the Future Growth heading, detailing more of Auckland's Unitary Plan for the city. The information I found comes from the Unitary Plan on the cities government website, please make any corrections to grammar or information as you see fit!
Thanks
Part of the plan includes creating a robust economy, stimulating business growth and further developing Auckland as an international city. Another large part of the Auckland Plan, labeled under Strategic direction 12 and Strategic direction 13, is to update existing infrastructure and develop new transport networks to accommodate the growing population and sprawling city. All the city’s power is currently generated off site and is funneled to the city along supply lines that are susceptible to disruption. The plan calls for upgrading and diversifying the city’s utility network including building new facilities that utilize renewables including solar on a small-scale. In terms of transportation, the plan addresses the impact of future traffic increase due to growing population and a lack of public transport. To combat these issues the city plans on utilizing public transport methods that are either underutilized or not in place at all. Facilitating the shift from private transportation to public transportation, the plan’s goal is to reduce traffic congestion, thus enabling the major roadways to be utilized for the transport of commerce and goods through the city. This goal aligns with the goal to grow the economy, putting an emphasis on the movement of goods throughout the city coming in and out of both the airport and the port. [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krickov2 ( talk • contribs) 08:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Auckland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
As I cannot add any pictures to wikipedia, I cannot add a picture of the city flag to this page. However, a picture of one can be seen here if anyone who can post pics wishes to do so in this case.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.72.138.86 ( talk) 18:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
In the first sentence, it states that Auckland's climate is oceanic to humid subtropical. I think the wording should be improved since the NIWA source never uses the term humid subtropical at all. The NIWA source classifies the Auckland area as being subtropical which I interpret it as a more general term (as subtropical climate include Mediterranean, certain arid/semi-arid climates). Humid subtropical is term reserved for areas where the mean temperature in the warmest month exceeds 22oC and the mean temperature in the coldest month is above -3oC and is not arid/semi-arid (see Köppen climate classification). I propose changing to saying that Auckland's climate is classified as subtropical according to the NIWA, and as oceanic under the Köppen climate classification. Ssbbplayer ( talk) 19:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Last sentence of the paragraph "Volcanoes":
"Few birds and insects inhabit the island because of the rich acidic soil and the type of flora growing out of the rocky soil."
Does this mean that the acidic soil and the type of flora do allow only a few species of birds and insects to live on that island?
OR
Does this mean that thanks to the geological properties and the growing flora a few species of birds and insects are living there?
I need this precision because I want to improve the French translation of this article.
Thanks in advance. MamieGeek ( talk) 06:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
In July 2008, the respected historian Peter Entwisle added material to this article on Joseph Weller's purchase of much of Auckland in 1832. See original edits The material, as it existed earlier today after various edits over the years, was as follows:
On 27 January 1832, Joseph Brooks Weller, eldest of the Weller brothers of Otago and Sydney, bought land including the site of the modern city of Auckland, the North Shore, and part of Rodney District for "one large cask of powder" from "Cohi Rangatira". [1]
This was removed today by @ E James Bowman: with the edit summary:
Removed Weller info as source does not exist and George Weller claim OLC495 held by Archives New Zealand is a primary source that requires interpretation
I note the same infomation appears in History of Auckland.
If the material is correct, then it seems a significant part of the history of Auckland, and I would expect that Entwisle is not the first person to have noticed the transaction, so secondary sources should exist. Unfortunately Entwisle is deceased, so we cannot ask him. Anyone available to do some digging on this?- gadfium 03:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
References
Dear James
Thanks for your enquiry regarding the following reference cited in /info/en/?search=Auckland: George Weller's Claim to lands in the Hauraki Gulf – transcript of original in National Archives, ms-0439/03 (A-H) HC.
It's hard to tell where the transcript is located from the reference cited in Wikipedia.
However I believe the original item is held by Archives New Zealand in Wellington (often referred to as the National Archives), and is likely to be the archive listed below:
Old Land Claims Commission case files Case files [George Weller, Thames and Auckland - no papers], no date - no date [Archives reference: ACFC 16153 OLC1 23 / OLC 495 (R18461649)]
Digital images of the file are available at this link: George Weller claim OLC 495 and can be downloaded.
Page three of this file refers to the purchase on 27 January 1832.
It seems likely that the chief's name should be Kohi, rather than Cohi (as C doesn't appear in the Maori alphabet).
Please contact us again if you have further queries.
Yours sincerely
Stephanie van Gaalen Archivist
Auckland Regional Office
The city and region of Auckland is also known by its now widely-accepted Māori name of Tāmaki Makaurau (there have been a variety of Māori names and formatting historically). As explained in
New Zealand place names: "Many names now have alternative or dual English and Māori names" "Most names have never been made official, but if they are mentioned in authoritative publications they are considered recorded names."
Examples of authoritative publishing include:
Further information on NZ place names (including Official, Dual, Alternative & Recorded names) can be found here:
E James Bowman ( talk) 00:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I do not know where to put this, but Tamaki Makaurau is usually translated as Tamaki with a Thousand Lovers, not Tamaki desired by many as the article states here - Kika.txt ( talk) 21:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your clarification Kika.txt ( talk) 20:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Would it not make sense to have transport as a sub-section of infrastructure?
If the transport section is too large to be reasonable accommodated as a sub-section, then could the 'infrastrcutre' section be renamed 'utilities' or something similar? Further, shouldn't telecommunications infrastructure be included too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GSNW8FRJ ( talk • contribs) 21:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
That they have put some wrong information about new Zealand in the history part of it 2001:BB6:5A8F:3B00:FD50:73DF:5FD1:6FBB ( talk) 12:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
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)
Avenue, is Hibiscus Coast really considered part of the Auckland *Urban* area??? Seems a bit "far out"? MadMaxDog 02:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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).
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 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)
It may be a bit outdated to say that the standard section in Auckland is 1000 metres squared.
I totally agree, so I changed it to read that this WAS traditionally the norm, but then left the bit about how infill housing has changed this. Jimmynzboy ( talk) 04:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
Didn't we have a twinned with section at some point? I am confused. MadMaxDog 11:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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?
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)
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)markrushmore Markrushmore 08:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Auckland | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Climate chart ( explanation) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 |
Mean daily maximum °C | 23.3 | 23.7 | 22.4 | 20.0 | 17.4 | 15.2 | 14.5 | 15.0 | 16.2 | 17.8 | 19.6 | 21.6 | 18.9 |
Mean daily minimum °C | 15.3 | 15.8 | 14.6 | 12.3 | 10.0 | 8.0 | 7.1 | 7.6 | 8.9 | 10.5 | 12.1 | 13.9 | 11.3 |
Average precipitation mm | 75 | 65 | 94 | 105 | 103 | 139 | 146 | 121 | 116 | 91 | 93 | 91 | 1,240 |
Mean daily maximum °F | 73.9 | 74.7 | 72.3 | 68.0 | 63.3 | 59.4 | 58.1 | 59.0 | 61.2 | 64.1 | 67.3 | 70.9 | 66.0 |
Mean daily minimum °F | 59.6 | 60.5 | 58.3 | 54.2 | 50.0 | 46.4 | 44.8 | 45.7 | 48.0 | 50.9 | 53.8 | 57.0 | 52.4 |
Average precipitation inches | 2.95 | 2.56 | 3.70 | 4.13 | 4.06 | 5.47 | 5.75 | 4.76 | 4.57 | 3.58 | 3.66 | 3.58 | 48.82 |
Source: [1] |
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |accessyear=
and |accessmonthday=
(
help)
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)
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)
This article does not meet the Good Article criteria, and will not be listed at the present time. I don't see how it even can be called "A-class", either. There is much work to be done, and the article is largely incomplete. At best, I'd rate it at a mid "B-class", and have removed the "A-class" rankings on the article, as it is a joke to grade this as an "A" (no offense here, but I'm just being honest). I noticed also that the article was subsequently nominated for WP:FAC as well, and listed for peer review. It's not appropriate to nominate for both GA & FA at the same time, as they are two separate processes, with FA being the "best of the best" and GA meaning that it meets some basic standards of an encyclopedia article and has "good" information. Furthermore, it's useless to nominate for both simultaneously because once an article achieves FA status, it's GA status is removed. Most articles usually are not dually-nominated for either FA & PR, or GA & PR, although this is less of an issue because PR does not assign a status to it. But be advised that the PR system in its current state is not working very well, and suffers from a general lack of reviewers. You'll be lucky to receive more than about 1 or 2 comments on the article, and may end up only receiving the automated review, which is next to worthless. But feel free to keep it listed there anyways,... who knows.
I'll try and address most of the issues below, based on the Good Article criteria. So this is a GA Review; although it should also be noted that I obviously do not believe the article meets the Featured Article criteria (which are similar, but far more stringent); so I predict it will fail FAC.
Referencing is insufficient, and is very scarce in sections, with some sections not having any references at all, and there is some important data with no citations at all. There's also quite a few lists in the article as well, which should be converted to prose. The sports section looks like just a collection of random facts rather than a good, well-written section describe sports in the city, and how they relate to the population.
The history section is very short, and is missing a lot of information. It's only got 5 references, with much unsourced. The future growth section should be largely reduced to one or two sentences, and combined with the history section. It is generally advised that articles avoid future population speculation, because they can be very unreliable. An entire section dedicated to this is asking for unfamiliar editors to add to this and make wildly speculative statements.
Instead of two subsections in 'geography' covering 'volcanoes' and 'harbours and gulf', combine this into one section called 'geology', as it's all related to the natural features of the area. The separate subsections are unnecessary. The 'climate' section is good, but absent is information on the 'neighborhoods' or 'cityscape' (major parts of town, how are streets organized, where are the residential, industrial, and commercial parts of town, etc).
The economy section is insufficient. It seems overly broad, beginning with, "Most major international corporations have an Auckland office, as the city is seen as the economic capital of the nation." Which corporations? We should be more specific. Don't list them, but some should be mentioned. A statement like, "The most expensive office space is around..." really doesn't tell much about the actual economy, and is kind of unnecessarily glowing and flowery. Flowery language should generally be avoided.
The last two paragraphs of the education section are just lists in disguise as prose, and "being amongst the most famous" is kind of flowery language again. Editors should really go through the whole article in better detail, looking for more flowerly language. More information on public school systems and private schools, as well as some of the more notable and reputable areas of research for some of the higher education institutions, should be provided.
More flowery language can be seen here: "Positive aspects of Auckland life are its mild climate, plentiful employment and educational opportunities,..." I would also recommend changing the 'lifestyle' to a 'culture' sections. The subsection entitled 'culture' in the 'people' section really deals more with demographics, and should be titled as such (which conforms to the title of most sections in wikipedia articles). Recommend eliminating the 'people' title and calling the section just 'demographics' - religion can become a small subsection under this.
I'm not getting the purpose of the 'housing' section. It seems like it would be better covered as a subsection under geography, and more information should be added regarding all the neighborhoods in the city. It's largely incomplete, though.
The transportation section is confusingly written with multiple third & fourth level headings that are making it look very fragmented and information doesn't tie well to the overall section very well.
The famous sites section is just two lists of some tourist attractions. I would recommend eliminating the section entirely and adding it to the 'culture' section, as cultural attractions. What about adding information on any annual cultural events or fairs in the city?
Lots of information is missing. There is nothing in the article about the city government (government section). There is nothing in the article about local media (newspapers, television, radio stations; media section).
All of the images meet the GA criteria, except that the coat of arms image in the infobox does not have a fair use rationale.
A minor issue is the formatting of the references; they are mainly just external links. Full citation information should be included here (author, title, publisher, date of publication, date of URL retrieval). This is so that, if the URL ever becomes a '404 not found', the reference can still be used to track down & verify the source and do additional research on the article. Please see WP:CITE for more information on formatting references and inline citations in articles.
I would strongly recommend looking at some of the current FA & GA articles in WikiProject Cities as examples. There are also two templates for city articles in that wikiproject as well; although they are geared towards US cities and UK cities, they are likely to still contain good information on improving any city article, and have a good system for the organization of content into sections and/or subsections (though too many subsections are discouraged).
Also, take a look at the manual of style and WP:LEAD, for information on style and the intro section.
I think I've covered the major issues with the article. It may not be complete, but it should be good to get editors started at improving the article up to GA status. Hope this helps! Cheers! Dr. Cash 05:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
The extreme temperatures cited were wrong. Highest temperature is in fact 34.4C at Albert Park and lowest -0.6C. (Font: New Zealand meterological Service,). Also no snow fell at Auckland centre in 1939, just in its suburbs and only for less than a hour wthout any accumulation to the ground. It is worth to point it out otherwise readers may be mislead. Thanks. Maximiliano Herrera. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.9.138.166 ( talk) 10:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Where is the explanation as to why the city is named "Auckland"!!?? This is key information and I find it astonishing that it is not included in such a well developed article. Kotare ( talk) 03:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Anybody agree to adding "Queen City" to the list of nicknames in the infobox? It's still used frequently in news media, so I reckon it should be added. Opinions? Loud noises ( talk) 10:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick note, shouldnt there be some mention of the 2 instances that Auckland hosted the commonwealth games in the past? It seems pretty important to the sport and even history of Auckland. Taifar ious1 05:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Taifar ious1 05:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I would like to propose a new picture for the Infobox. The current one, im sorry to say, is rather boring, I have made 2 possible candidates modelled on the New York City, Chicago and the one I have created for the Los Angeles articles. The proposed photographs are below. Please leave a comment on any changes etc.
Thanks, Taifar ious1 09:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC) - PS, see Las Vegas and San Francisco for other montages i've created for city articles.
The image File:Commonwealth Games Federation Logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 16:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The population has been restored to the estimate supplied by the template for several reasons:
XLerate ( talk) 01:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The article says that Auckland is roughly the same size as London. However, Auckland is 420 square miles compared to London at just under 660 square miles. That means that Auckland is less than 2/3rd the size of London, so to say they're roughly the same size is misleading. Canuck85 ( talk) 23:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
On this page it says that Old Government House, now part of the University of Auckland, is where New Zealand's Parliament met until the Capital moved to Wellington. However, the Parliament website suggests otherwise: http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/AboutParl/HstBldgs/History/Auckland/b/f/f/bfff12414f0a4c8f95ed830798619408.htm
As well, my understanding is that Old Government House is where the Governor (and later Governor-General) used to live when in Auckland (prior to the gifting of Government House Auckland in Mt Eden in the 1960s). See here: http://www.gg.govt.nz/government-house/earlier
I don't have a wiki login, so can someone else update/correct/clarify this?
Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.22.141 ( talk) 22:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
would like to see more related to this in the article, like universities. -- Billymac00 04:57, 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)
A couple of years later, and there is still occasional to-and-fro with people adding schools to the list. I have yet to see anyone politely suggest the addition of a school, as is requested in an html comment in the section. I repeat my suggestion that we remove the list of schools. It could be readded in the form "[reliable source] listed the top schools in Auckland as ... on [date]" if anyone wants to dig up such a source. The Metro magazine article referred to above is perhaps now to old, but it might have updated the list.- gadfium 19:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The picture in this section is of foellinger auditorium, which is nowhere near Auckland at all: It's in Urbana, Illinois.
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
So what's the name of the one the city's on...? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I have removed "Climatic conditions vary in different parts of the city owing to geography such as hills, land cover and distance from the sea, hence unofficial temperature records exist, such as a maximum of 34°C (93.2°F) in West Auckland" - source Auckland enjoys hottest day ever, NZH, 12 February 2009. The Herald does not say that 34 is a record high. It says only that it was higher than the official high that day of 32.4 at Whenuapai. It does not rule out previous higher unofficial temps. In addition, the Whenuapai figure of 32.4 is said by Jim Salinger to equal the previous high, but this is contradicted by "The absolute maximum recorded temperature is 34.4 °C", from the MetService. Pending further reliable sources, I think we should stick with the MetService, rather than the Herald, which is not reliable and may have misquoted Salinger. Nurg ( talk) 11:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
-- Mick man34 ♣ ( talk) 17:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
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, healthcare 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.
Aucland's urban area size is 1086 sq km. And population cant even be theoretically so dense as listed in article.
http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/people_and_communities/geographic-areas/urban-rural-profile/main-urban-areas/people.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.71.47.201 ( talk) 01:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:AucklandPano MC.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 14, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-07-14. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 00:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I've no idea what this means, and I'm a native English speaker. Plain English please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.72.147 ( talk) 17:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
An IP has made the change to subtropical climate, citing a user-created wiki image as a source. While wiki is not self-referencing this NIWA link [2] would seem support the change. Are there, as I suspect, equally valid references to support the previous classification of temperate? DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 11:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
While reading this article a few minutes ago, I found two nearly identical sections: one called "People" and another called "Demography" below it. The demography section was more detailed and included details about ethnic backgrounds, population growth, and religion, but the people section consisted solely of information about ethnic backgrounds, a blank subheading that read "Demographics", and a link to the page " Culture of New Zealand". The people section was also more abridged than the demography section. Maybe the two sections could be merged into one section? Or the people section could be expanded further? Sorry if my post was difficult to understand; this is my first contribution to a Wikipedia talk page. Everyone needs a little Bad Weather. ( talk) 20:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I would question that statement that: "It is not contiguous; the section from Waiwera to Whangaparaoa Peninsula is separate from its nearest neighbouring suburb of Long Bay". That implies that another province lies between, but the land is continuously Auckland. 122.59.83.216 ( talk) 06:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
The article states that "Asians are Auckland's fastest growing ethnic group". But "Asian" is not an ethnic group under any accepted definition. Asia is a continent, Asian a person from that continent. There are many, quite diverse, ethnic groups, there. 122.59.83.216 ( talk) 06:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
What is missing from the city timeline? Please add relevant content. Thank you. -- M2545 ( talk) 11:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
In the first paragraph of the lead, this appears: Auckland also has the largest Polynesian population of any city in the world.[4] The reference, first retrieved in 2010, is now not relevant as it takes the reader to an error page. Akld guy ( talk) 11:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
All of the dollar values cited in the 'Economy' section come from statistics that are now very old, the worst example being from 2001. Somebody with time on their hands might like to update them. Akld guy ( talk) 08:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
All flags under the country sections of NZ on wikipedia are referencing a flag currently under debate for changing the flag in NZ. For example: looking under the Auckland right-hand column shows the incorrect flag for New Zealand in under the map section.
The union jack and southern cross is still the current flag in NZ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.67.46 ( talk) 05:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Many Wikipedia tables include record temps, and this gives a useful feel for temperature variability. 99.190.133.143 ( talk) 20:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Auckland. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The lead image must have the description of the picture, like other cities:
From top, clockwise: Auckland's skyline, building A, building B, etc.
@ldrianyf ^o^ % 02:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Auckland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello all,
Since the Housing section lacked significant material, i have added the following to it regarding special housing.
Many residents in Auckland were facing a housing crisis during the late 2000s. Since the housing in the current market are not affordable for every citizen, the government has had to take certain measures to ensure that every citizen can afford housing. The Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act was passed in 2013 which ensured that a certain percentage (at least 10, but more in certain areas) of houses in certain housing areas were priced at an amount that was considered to be affordable for a household earning what was considered the average income at the time[75]. For example, in the neighborhood of Hobsonville Point it is 20% and those houses are priced below $550,000 to make it affordable for people who earn the average wage[75]. While the program has been in effect for a few years, it is not at the stage where the program is fully functional. Many SHAs have been established and de-established since the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act was passed in 2013. There are still many areas with SHA homes that are not fully functioning as they were meant to or just simply not accessible for their target demographic. There are a few simple explanations for this[75]:
• Not all developments have fully functioning websites as of today • There might not be one person in charge of that particular area that can be contacted • Some developers are not marketing SHA homes as of now • All the homes in a particular area have already been sold
There are still kinks in the system that need to be ironed out by the government as there are still many people who cannot either find or afford homes. Housing has been, however, more affordable for certain demographics than it has ever been. The Housing Legislation Amendment Act was passed in parliament in 2016 as an amendment to the Housing Accords and Special Areas of 2013[75]. This amendment was meant to make the parameters to classify SHA homes in certain areas more flexible[75]. The population of Auckland will need more houses in the future due to its growing population - 53,000 people moved into the city between June 2014 and June 2015[76].
Oparano2 ( talk) 08:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello all,
I've added information under the Future Growth heading, detailing more of Auckland's Unitary Plan for the city. The information I found comes from the Unitary Plan on the cities government website, please make any corrections to grammar or information as you see fit!
Thanks
Part of the plan includes creating a robust economy, stimulating business growth and further developing Auckland as an international city. Another large part of the Auckland Plan, labeled under Strategic direction 12 and Strategic direction 13, is to update existing infrastructure and develop new transport networks to accommodate the growing population and sprawling city. All the city’s power is currently generated off site and is funneled to the city along supply lines that are susceptible to disruption. The plan calls for upgrading and diversifying the city’s utility network including building new facilities that utilize renewables including solar on a small-scale. In terms of transportation, the plan addresses the impact of future traffic increase due to growing population and a lack of public transport. To combat these issues the city plans on utilizing public transport methods that are either underutilized or not in place at all. Facilitating the shift from private transportation to public transportation, the plan’s goal is to reduce traffic congestion, thus enabling the major roadways to be utilized for the transport of commerce and goods through the city. This goal aligns with the goal to grow the economy, putting an emphasis on the movement of goods throughout the city coming in and out of both the airport and the port. [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krickov2 ( talk • contribs) 08:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Auckland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
As I cannot add any pictures to wikipedia, I cannot add a picture of the city flag to this page. However, a picture of one can be seen here if anyone who can post pics wishes to do so in this case.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.72.138.86 ( talk) 18:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
In the first sentence, it states that Auckland's climate is oceanic to humid subtropical. I think the wording should be improved since the NIWA source never uses the term humid subtropical at all. The NIWA source classifies the Auckland area as being subtropical which I interpret it as a more general term (as subtropical climate include Mediterranean, certain arid/semi-arid climates). Humid subtropical is term reserved for areas where the mean temperature in the warmest month exceeds 22oC and the mean temperature in the coldest month is above -3oC and is not arid/semi-arid (see Köppen climate classification). I propose changing to saying that Auckland's climate is classified as subtropical according to the NIWA, and as oceanic under the Köppen climate classification. Ssbbplayer ( talk) 19:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Last sentence of the paragraph "Volcanoes":
"Few birds and insects inhabit the island because of the rich acidic soil and the type of flora growing out of the rocky soil."
Does this mean that the acidic soil and the type of flora do allow only a few species of birds and insects to live on that island?
OR
Does this mean that thanks to the geological properties and the growing flora a few species of birds and insects are living there?
I need this precision because I want to improve the French translation of this article.
Thanks in advance. MamieGeek ( talk) 06:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
In July 2008, the respected historian Peter Entwisle added material to this article on Joseph Weller's purchase of much of Auckland in 1832. See original edits The material, as it existed earlier today after various edits over the years, was as follows:
On 27 January 1832, Joseph Brooks Weller, eldest of the Weller brothers of Otago and Sydney, bought land including the site of the modern city of Auckland, the North Shore, and part of Rodney District for "one large cask of powder" from "Cohi Rangatira". [1]
This was removed today by @ E James Bowman: with the edit summary:
Removed Weller info as source does not exist and George Weller claim OLC495 held by Archives New Zealand is a primary source that requires interpretation
I note the same infomation appears in History of Auckland.
If the material is correct, then it seems a significant part of the history of Auckland, and I would expect that Entwisle is not the first person to have noticed the transaction, so secondary sources should exist. Unfortunately Entwisle is deceased, so we cannot ask him. Anyone available to do some digging on this?- gadfium 03:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
References
Dear James
Thanks for your enquiry regarding the following reference cited in /info/en/?search=Auckland: George Weller's Claim to lands in the Hauraki Gulf – transcript of original in National Archives, ms-0439/03 (A-H) HC.
It's hard to tell where the transcript is located from the reference cited in Wikipedia.
However I believe the original item is held by Archives New Zealand in Wellington (often referred to as the National Archives), and is likely to be the archive listed below:
Old Land Claims Commission case files Case files [George Weller, Thames and Auckland - no papers], no date - no date [Archives reference: ACFC 16153 OLC1 23 / OLC 495 (R18461649)]
Digital images of the file are available at this link: George Weller claim OLC 495 and can be downloaded.
Page three of this file refers to the purchase on 27 January 1832.
It seems likely that the chief's name should be Kohi, rather than Cohi (as C doesn't appear in the Maori alphabet).
Please contact us again if you have further queries.
Yours sincerely
Stephanie van Gaalen Archivist
Auckland Regional Office
The city and region of Auckland is also known by its now widely-accepted Māori name of Tāmaki Makaurau (there have been a variety of Māori names and formatting historically). As explained in
New Zealand place names: "Many names now have alternative or dual English and Māori names" "Most names have never been made official, but if they are mentioned in authoritative publications they are considered recorded names."
Examples of authoritative publishing include:
Further information on NZ place names (including Official, Dual, Alternative & Recorded names) can be found here:
E James Bowman ( talk) 00:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I do not know where to put this, but Tamaki Makaurau is usually translated as Tamaki with a Thousand Lovers, not Tamaki desired by many as the article states here - Kika.txt ( talk) 21:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your clarification Kika.txt ( talk) 20:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Would it not make sense to have transport as a sub-section of infrastructure?
If the transport section is too large to be reasonable accommodated as a sub-section, then could the 'infrastrcutre' section be renamed 'utilities' or something similar? Further, shouldn't telecommunications infrastructure be included too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GSNW8FRJ ( talk • contribs) 21:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
That they have put some wrong information about new Zealand in the history part of it 2001:BB6:5A8F:3B00:FD50:73DF:5FD1:6FBB ( talk) 12:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)