Talk:Mount Eden

message: I think that in an encyclopedic sense "Mount Eden" should be referring to the volcano more than the suburb; suburbs don't really recieve recognition in an encyclopedia, volcanoes do.  Would it be worth making the article about the volcano (not the suburb)? Neonumbers 08:51, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd leave it as both - a lot of Auckland suburbs now have entries. You'll note that the categories it leads to are Auckland Volcanic Field - where it's indexed under E for "Eden, Mt." (the volcano), and Auckland, where it's indexed under M for "Mount Eden" (the suburb). Same applies with Mount Wellington 9and will soon apply with Mts Roskill and Albert) [[User:Grutness|Grutness talk ] 11:01, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Compare to Three Kings, New Zealand. Suburb and its mountain in one article just seems to work IMHO --BakugekiNZ 07:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) 10:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Volcano or suburb?

message: "one mans meat is another mans poison". dunno, but  sometimes I wonder where this is all going. ok so delete stuff and that will make it better. But how about move that content to wwhere it is needed? If you put it in a stubb then it will be suggested to be moved to a common article, and thats where it cam from. perhaps put it in the talk page to assemble it for its ultimate destination. thats too hard for some, deletion is real easy. It may be irrelevant to some, but not to others, the usual plan is to talk about it first, or at least give better reasoning, but I am still trying to understand how thats being bold. deletion is kinda bold, but even boldness could come with some sensitivity.moza 13:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  deletion of historical content 

message: * The operator on Mt Eden, and notes to history of radio in NZ.
Typical use of the facilty was for Taxi, Trucks and Vans, and any business needing mobile communications back to their office. The scheme was designed as a work around for the topography and small scale business needs of New Zealand, with the then NZPO (New Zealand Post Office) Radio Depot and Inspectors having complete durisdiction over all radio frequencies, for all purposes.moza 13:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  temporary placement of 'irrelevant' content here 

message: Are the Tea Rooms actually at the summit of Mt Eden.  I thought they were down a bit. GrahamBould 14:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, I've changed it.-gadfium 19:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tea Rooms

message: All the other suburbs seem off. Morningside is west (maybe even southwest) according to Wises.co.nz, not northwest. Similar for Grafton etc... MadMaxDog 11:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Close-by suburbs

message: No offense, but I think the picture :Image:Whautree02.jpg isn't good enough to replace one of the existing pictures. It is already linked to the Entelea arborescens plant article, so it isn't as if it will be unused. MadMaxDog 00:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No offense taken. Kahuroa 09:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Whau Tree pic

message: I saw the article in Google Earth, but it was near the "New Zealand Sub-Antarctic Islands", not Auckland.
So I guess the coordinates are not quite right?
Kinghcicken2 12:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just tried it, and while the coordinates are not particularly accurate, being only to the nearest minute, they are in the approximate area of Mt Eden in Auckland. I see no vandalism to the article, so unless there's a second set of coordinates in the article I'm not seeing, I don't know how you got the result in the Antarctic. Are the coordinates you see in the article 36°52′S 174°45′E, and if it still is showing the wrong result, can you explain exactly what you do?-gadfium 18:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinates 

message: FixBunching seems not work properly. Could I ask why not just use 300px or 250px to fix the width of the image? --Dayten (talk) 01:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Forcing the image size has various bad effects, so it's discouraged unless really necessary. See WP:ImageSize. --Avenue (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: While I am not against your option, it does completely contradict to the purpose of FixBunching model. Dayten (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I follow you. FixBunching has nothing to do with image size, and it seems to be working as intended here - all the "edit" links are lining up horizontally with the corresponding heading. Are you concerned about the blank space just to the left of the images, under the left side of the infobox? --Avenue (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Image Size Looks Too Small

message: I think this page should be split into two pages (for the suburb and the volcano) to bring it into line with other Auckland volcano pages. Haminoon (talk) 00:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take that response as a hearty "I agree". Haminoon (talk) 08:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting the page in two