Talk:Auckland/Archive 1

message: Added the bit about Whenuapai — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmy Ho (talk • contribs) 10:31, 3 April 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial text

message: 210.185.5.117 removed some of the paragraph about Auckland's traffic problems and the proposed Eastern motorway. I would prefer that this paragraph stay (and therefore reverted this poster's change), but perhaps we could change the wording if something about it offends this poster. I have changed the description of the opposition to the motorway from "growing opposition worldwide" to just "opposition". Gadfium 00:11, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think describing Britomart as controversial is a simple statement of fact. I agree that the bit about the mangroves wasn't balanced.--Gadfium 02:06, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: eastern corridor

message: The caption under the image of the areal shot of the spaghetti (:Image:CMJ.jpg) says: "The completed central motorway junction", I gather it refers to the old part being completed, but that is a bit misleading since there is quite a lot of work going on it now.--Konstable 02:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Central Motorway Junction

message: I removed the sentence 'This focus has been partly due to the low population density of the Auckland region (again, similar to New Zealand in general terms), making public transport less cost-effective when compared to denser urban centres in other parts of the world.' As this is incorrect. Auckland actually has a higher urban density than any large Australian city except Sydney, and higher than any large Canadian city except Toronto. And it is much higher than most comparable US city. It is only lower in comparison to European cities. See http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf for data. I removed it because I couldn't think of a better way of phrasing the sentence to make it accurate.
Sunflower 23:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I missed your post here when I reverted the change as unexplained (because you posted here logged in but on the article as an anon, and you didn't post at the bottom of the page). The population density figures are perhaps not strictly comparable, because Auckland is constrained by the isthmus and is therefore more spread out than other cities with a comparable land area. I'll try rewording the sentence to show this.-gadfium 00:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends rather a lot on one's frame of reference. Auckland might seem dense compared to North America and Australia, but it's not just European cities that are denser. A quick look at the link suggests that Auckland is not very dense compared to not just Europe, but Asia, South America, the Indian subcontinent, and Africa.--Limegreen 02:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, it would be good to point out that Asia and Europe tend to have (comparatively) good public transport systems, whereas the US does tend not to. Therefore, this actually supports the point that Sunflower felt disproven. MadMaxDog 07:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: A large percentage of Auckland is dominated by a very suburban style of building, giving the city a very low population density: although it has not much more than a seventh of the population of London, it sprawls over a considerably larger area 
* Auckland infobox says: area 1,086 km² (419 sq mi).  
* London infobox says: 1,579 km² (609 sq mi).
Last time I checked 1,086 was not "considerably larger" than 1,579.  Of course, it is considerably larger than the City of London (2.6 km² (1.00 sq mi)), but that has a population of less than 10,000, which isn't seven times bigger than Auckland's one million... so this paragraph clearly does intend to compare with Greater London.  Either way... something isn't adding up here?
Stevekeiretsu 03:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Urban Density

message: I like it, Ben! Robin Patterson 06:36, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I've done it for Wellington and Dunedin as well Ben Arnold 09:46, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  New geostatistical table 

message: I have moved this page from Auckland, New Zealand to just Auckland. This is to be consistent with Wikipedia's international naming standards, which are to disambiguate only if the name of a place is in conflict with another use of the name, and the placename is not the most dominant use of the name.
I don't think there's even a disambiguation page for Auckland, so the question of dominance doesn't even arise.
Currently about half the links are to Auckland and half to Auckland, New Zealand. I expect this to slowly rationalise. I will make an effort to tidy some of this up myself.
Ben Arnold 05:59, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Only just related: who/what/where was the City of Auckland named after? I had the vague idea that it was named after an English Bishop whose name was Auckland, but after finding Bishop Auckland I'm now awfully confused. Should there not be a disabiguation page, particularly as the Bishop Auckland page has a link to the as-yet-non-existant page West Auckland.--Dom 12:20, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: George Eden, Baron Auckland, born 1784, died 1849, Governor-General of India 1836-1842, subsequently made Earl of Auckland. A disambiguation page should be created at Auckland (disambiguation) and this page should remain just Auckland. Ben Arnold 05:41, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from Auckland, New Zealand to just Auckland

message: Particularly Auckland City suburbs, such as the newly-written-up Epsom, New Zealand? Robin Patterson 03:24, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created a :Category:Auckland, and put the Epsom article into it. If you were planning to write a lot of articles about the suburbs, it might be worth having a :Category:Suburbs of Auckland (or :Category:Auckland suburbs) as you can see the similar categories :Category:Melbourne suburbs and :Category:London Districts. -gadfium 05:15, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have shifted them to Auckland (region) Papeschr 07:25, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: See the note below on lists - they should be written into the articles on the four cities, but preferably not as lists. In the case of other large NZ cities, they are arranged geographically (again as noted below). Also note that in the last week I've written small articles on about 25 suburban areas in and around Auckland. There is now a :Category: Auckland urban districts, which keeps it in line with other large cities where suburbs and sectiions have separate articles. I've shifted them (and Epsom, New Zealand) there. This, also in line with these articles, should be for distinct areas of the urban area of any size, but should not include the article on the city (in this case four cities) itself/themselves, and should not include the likes of parks, streets or buildings. [[User:Grutness|Grutness talk ] 11:15, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where can we list the suburbs? 

message: where does the south pacific start or stop? Sydney has much more people in the central "city" area than the whole of auckland, and indeed a much larger pure metropolitan area.
:And Santiago has a bigger population than New Zealand as a whole.
::Got to agree. It looks wrong. Nurg 06:51, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrase I hear most often is "Largest city in Polynesia" - which definitely exludes Australia but includes NZ. dramatic 09:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Would that have been to do with land area? I think Auckland is surprisingly high up the list for land coverage of cities of something...--Taitey 00:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  largest city in the "south pacific"? 

message: I think it's a pity the way this article is going. Lists of DHBs, lists of suburbs containing links to mostly non-existent articles. Do readers really want to know there is a suburb called Davenport [sic] with no further info about it. I can see what's coming - lists of schools, lists of churches, ad nauseum. Meanwhile no work on the text of the article. There's a place for lists but this is an encyclopedia article about Auckland, not a series of lists. "You should avoid list-making in entries. Wikipedia is not a list repository .... Having lists instead of article text makes Wikipedia worse, not better." - Wikipedia:Embedded_list. Nurg 07:14, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree. Moving the lists to Auckland (region). People can abuse me later :o)  Papeschr 07:24, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Those non-existent articles on suburbs will exist soon - I'm writing them at a rate of about ten a day, as I've been doing with other New Zealand geography articles (348 since early October). Give 'em time. I agree about the lists though. A far better scheme is that used for Dunedin and Christchurch - although the size of the Auckland U.A. might make it difficult: Inner suburbs listed geographically, clockwise from the city centre, then the same with outer suburbs. The best solution might be a clickable map, but that might be too much work. [[User:Grutness|Grutness talk ] 11:01, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll understand if you're mad at me for this, but the list of Auckland suburbs is back here - in different form. They have been arranged geographically, as I mentioned above, and the Waitakere, North Shore, and Manukau ones are on the pages for their respective cities arranged either in the same way or within the text of the articles. Listed suburbs do NOT beong on the region pages, since they aren't suburbs of regions, they are suburbs of the cities within the region. You'll notice that over 20 of the "non-existent articles" now exist, too. [[User:Grutness|Grutness talk ] 07:12, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm moving them to the city pages.  Hope no-one objects, but they don't belong here and they don't belong on the region page either so to the city pages it is. Neonumbers 04:35, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, OK - but now you have the task of disambiguating the Auckland conurbation (this page) from the city of Auckland. That will probably also mean a considerable rewrite of this article, sonce there's no indication on much of it that it isn't talking about Auckland city. Have fun! [[User:Grutness|Grutness talk ] 05:29, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: This article is about the Auckland metro area as a whole, so I made sure that it followed that and didn't get sidetracked to Auckland City.  I thought it was fine, mostly, except for the isthmus part (which is now changed)... Neonumbers 04:52, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the thing I'm most concerned about it that it doesn't say anywhere that it's not about the city itself. Read it as someone who doesn't know, and you're not going to find out you're not reading about Auckland city. It needs something - early - to say that this isn't an article about the city. I'd suggest replacing the first sentence (which is incorrect, anyway) with something like Auckland is the largest urban area in New Zealand. It is a conurbation, made up of the cities of Auckland City, Waitakere, Manukau and North Shore. In Maori... [[User:Grutness|Grutness talk ] 05:54, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Yep, I see what you're getting at now.  It makes sense to replace the first sentence with something of the sort.  I don't know, though, from an outsider's point of view, precisely what the difference between Auckland and Auckland City is, if it would be easy or difficult to distinguish, and if Auckland City is or isn't more than just a political division, and what is defined as "Auckland" in everyday use.  Either way, specifying that it's a conurbation can't do any harm, so we may as well change the first sentence.  But, out of interest, what does everyone else think of as "Auckland" and "Auckland City"?  (I suppose this follows onto the other three cities and if they consider themselves Aucklanders?) Neonumbers 08:00, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: FWIW, even here at the other end of the country "South Auckland" and "West Auckland" conjure up completely different images, and neither image is that conjured up by "Auckland city" (to reduce it to its basest level: rappers, bogans, and yuppies respectively  :) . Replace those terms with Manukau, Waitakere, and Auckland cities, and at least there's some key to the way they are differentiated in the public conscience. I think that - for much of the country - Waitakere, Manukau and North Shore are seen as peripheral parts of Auckland, a bit like massive super-suburbs clipped on the sides like the extra lanes on the bridge. [[User:Grutness|Grutness talk ] 10:29, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: The article as it is now then, does that reflect all of Auckland?  I think it does, but I just want to check that I'm right.  That, and does Auckland City need to cover anything more than administrational and geographic matters?  History should more or less parallel Auckland's history, I think, though I don't know enough to say that for sure. Neonumbers 23:52, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Best thing might be to compare the city article with the ones for Waitakere, North Shore, Manukau - make it as similar to them in look as possible. That might also give more of an indication of what belongs there and what belongs here, although I don't suppose it would matter too much if there's an overlap of information to some extent between the articles. [[User:Grutness|Grutness talk ] 00:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "Avoid lists"

message: An anon contributor has updated the population figures for Auckland and several surrounding areas. While the changes are plausible, I'd like to know where they came from. A quick look around the Auckland City Council and statistics NZ articles didn't give me current population estimates. Does anyone have a source to back up these figures? I've left a message on the anon's talk page, but it's an xtra dialup account so it's unlikely they'll see it.-gadfium 18:32, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I found one.  Statistics NZ has its population estimates tables, available at this page (you need to click on the link to the Excel table).  The sub-regional tables are on Tables 2 and 3.  The numbers for Auckland urban area and Auckland City parallel these ones; I haven't checked the other three figures (I'm too lazy).  I also haven't done anything about the source except post this message, so if someone could cite that source or whatever needs to be done that'd be good. Neonumbers 11:27, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Population update

message: Most of the images seem unhealthily fixated on the Sky Tower building - I know Auckland has more visually to offer than one building, and internationally the Sky Tower isn't particularly original. I'm thinking in particular that the image used in the introduction could be improved. It's currently mostly of the Sky Tower with some other visual information about a street ... and looks much like any other city in the world! Why not replace it with an aerial image that shows the harbour, the CBD and some islands? It could even be replaced by the image further down the page. Doing a quick Google Image search for picture of Auckland gives you an idea of what a beautiful city environment we have. We should show it!  --Heyseuss 09:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Images of Auckland

message: mainly used by non-Aucklanders
:I removed this from "So Ponsonby" because I have never heard the term used (being a non-Aucklander) and if it is mainly used by non-Aucklanders then is it an "Auckland term"? I'm dubious about the encyclopaedic nature of idioms such as these anyway.
Ben Arnold 21:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I've certainly never heard the term - I had to look the article up to find out what it meant. I suspect it's actually one more often used by Aucklanders than non-Aucklanders (either that or its a neologism invented by whoever added it to the article!) Grutness...wha? 22:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto, I have never heard of it, and I have lived in Auckland for the past 8 years. Onco_p53 23:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't Ponsonby often called the gay part of Auckland? That would make some 'sense' for it to be used in referring to stuff people considered 'gay' (which is still often used as a swearword for 'strange' or 'stupid', nowadays...) Max robitzsch 12:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor changes justified

message: Does Botany Town Centre, Howick count as a notable landmark or place in Auckland? A new anonymous user appeared to have deleted it in vandalism but I don't know whether it should be there anyway.
:If it is indeed the largest outdoor shopping complex in the Southern Hemisphere, as its article claims, then it is unquestionably a notable place in Auckland. If that claim can't be substantiated, then perhaps it should be moved up to the Leisure section, along with other shopping centres. It might not be a bad idea to put it there anyway.-gadfium 22:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Landmarks

message: I've uploaded a map of the urban area at :Image:Aucklandmap.png (and added it to the article). I intend to use it as a template for some other articles about Auckland places. Feel free to use it for the same thing if you want! Grutness...wha? 09:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Auckland map

message: I modified the following sentence
:An almost equally large proportion of the population is made up of people of Asian origin (mainly East Asian)
to include South Asian. I can't find any statistic for Auckland per se but the 2001 figures show East Asian (Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Taiwanese Chinese, I excluded Vietnamese but they wouldn't change things that much anyway) only make up 133k/237k of the Asian population nationwide which was something like what I expected. I would hardly call that mainly especially as Indian is 60k. Nil Einne 17:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Asian population

message: I don't really like this template on the bottom of the page. It could go on the Britomart Transport Centre article; that would be fine. For (greater) Auckland, it takes up a lot of space to little purpose. For comparison, we don't put an Air New Zealand template on every destination Air NZ flies to. I suspect for most of the cities the template has been placed on, it won't be terribly appropriate.-gadfium 08:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, it's been removed after I put a message on the originator's talk page.-gadfium 08:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Overlander train stops

message: I'm sorry but this ridiculous POV section with the various alleged social stereotypes of each geographic Auckland location had to go. This is what it said:
Aucklanders are viewed with varying degrees of dislike by some New Zealanders living outside Auckland. One perception of Aucklanders is that they are rich latte-sipping yuppies, with trendy but impractical political views. Some claim jokingly that Aucklanders think that "New Zealand stops at the Bombay Hills", the Bombay Hills forming the Auckland region's southern boundary. Some people living south of the hills agree with the statement, but regard "true" New Zealand as lying south, not north, of the hills. The word Jafa was coined as an insulting nickname for Aucklanders, but Aucklanders have robbed the word of its sting by enthusiastically embracing it.
If someone can seriously put forward an argument as to how this isn't POV, show correct references and exactly how this deserves to be in an encyclopedia I'd love to hear it. - Glen TC (Stollery) 06:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social perceptions section - removed 

message: This article was split from the Auckland article by  without discussion, and is now nominated for deletion. Should we have this material as part of the Auckland article, as a standalone article, or not at all?-gadfium 05:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely keep it here for now, IMO. The article's not that long yet, and it seems to fit in nicely. -- Avenue 08:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Your original split of this material went through Afd; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attractions and Landmarks in Auckland. There's lots of discussion there, with a near unanimous agreement that this material should not be split from Auckland.-gadfium 19:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anybody think that the hunua ranges or ardmore airshow should go in this section? I think that they are quite exciting for auckland. --HannahSamuels 22:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I recently deleted the Ardmore airshow - because it is an event (and only a biannual one at that) and not an attraction in the sense of a physical location. If you'd like this included, maybe move it into a subsection like lifestyle. As for the hunua ranges, maybe. But then, we do not have the Waitakeres as an AUCKLAND attraction - rather noted in parks and nature as something close by... MadMaxDog 05:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Attractions and Landmarks in Auckland]]

message: Someone replaced the urban area population figures for Auckland and Wellington with figures for the Auckland and Wellington regions. I've reverted those changes.
Urban areas are defined to cover the urban sprawl of cities and towns in New Zealand. This includes the urban parts of subsidiary local authorities in the greater area, but excludes rural parts of cities and districts. The regional figure on the other hand refers to the entire subnational local government unit (equivalent to Canterbury or the Bay of Plenty) and includes rural areas, small towns and offshore islands. In the case of Auckland, outlying areas such as Helensville, Wellsford, Waiuku and Great Barrier Island are part of the Region but well outside the contiguous urban sprawl and should not be included in a figure for the population of Auckland. In the case of Wellington, the Wairarapa is included in the regional figure — separated from the urban sprawl by peaks nearly a kilometre above sea level.
It's unfortunate for our purposes that provisional census results have not yet been aggregated to the urban area level but we'll just have to wait. The correct place for the regional population figure is the article about the local government region (Auckland Region or Wellington Region).
Ben Arnold 09:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Ben, the provisional results have been released at area unit level, and that could be re-calculated using suitable boundaries, perhaps the last urban boundaries that are few years old, but hard to justify for a free article. Statistics New Zealand recently supplied my company the national data (you can mine it off the web but there are 2000 files to join) and the AU boundary file is free off the web, so I could make a thematic map that would be quite informative, but I dont know how to give it copyright free. Even though its all available for free off the Government website, I believe that it still must have a source declaration, but I may be wrong. I wonder if anyone can clarify this, I can always include the notice in the body of the image. Maybe I could simply redraw the boundaries as a 'smoothed' graphic, and give that.
Another possibility is to place it on one of my own web sites, and have a link to the images, but thats less effective. I would like to give something at some stage though, to help people understand this area of my interest, as I see you and others are interested for sure. I'm also really interested in the population changes and displaying that characteristic as a colour for each area. Another possibility for an 'Auckland' population figure is to combine the relevant city (T/A) population data? that would miss some of the sprawl i guess, the urban map looks like it bulges out from the T/A's in places, and it sucks in around the city contained rural areas, but it would be quite close i am thinking. your thoughts? moza 13:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had wondered about doing that (aggregating the area unit figures) too. I think combining Stats NZ's population figures according to their area definitions, and putting the results on Wikipedia, would not violate copyright because you are transforming the information in a non-trivial way, not simply copying it. (But IANAL.) Doing this might however be seen as original research and thus against Wikipedia policy. Personally I think it's not "original" enough to really be original research, but some might disagree. Producing a "smoothed" map is another issue; I haven't thought that one through. By the way, our current map does not match Stats NZ's definition of the Auckland urban area, so don't base your decisions on how it looks. -- Avenue 11:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just remembered that there is a good reason for not doing this. The population estimate currently shown in our article should be more accurate, even though it is nine months further out of date, because it adjusts for net census undercount (of about 3%) and for residents who are temporarily overseas, and does not include temporary visitors. (See   for details.) All but the last point also apply to the final Census figures coming out in November. So it would also be best to keep using population estimates even when the final Census figures become available. -- Avenue 22:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, i agree, in some ways. The urban boundary is in digital form and could be used, but then the count is fixed in time! (census 2006) and the boundary is 2001 so thats not a good plan. I need to look at the accuracy of the estimates more, but if Stats are publishing that, then i say good enough. Original research is only if unpublished elsewhere, and I can publish it on a mapping company site that can be referenced so its no longer original. I'll ask for the new urban boundaries, Stats are really good, they always help as much as they can. The old one is viewable on webmap, by panning around you can determine the extents. The inter-city data and maps are always the hardest to organise as they need communication with several T/A's and thats time consuming and often expensive, so we dont do much of it. cheers.moza 07:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Population figure

message: Someone has added a long list of suburbs. Should we merge these into the articles for the appropriate cities or districts? This seems to have been the approach taken before (see the first comment by Neonumbers in the Talk:Auckland#.22Avoid_lists.22 section above). -- Avenue 09:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I see gadfium deleted it while I was writing this. That's fine with me. -- Avenue 09:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It certainly doesn't belong in this article. I think long lists like this are ugly. The list is already contained in slightly more readable format in the various city articles. (and I edit conflicted with you when I wrote this - then went on to other tabs and didn't notice this hadn't been saved)-gadfium 09:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of suburbs 

message: As the subject says; North Shore City is north of the city centre - Mission Bay is to the south. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.234.152.147 (talk • contribs) .
:Well spotted. And that view isn't from Mission Bay at all. I'd guess somewhere near Okahu Bay. -- Avenue 13:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mission Bay is not within North Shore City 

message: There are perpetual calls for a greater Auckland city, especially in the media and especially in light of this  should we add something (doesn't have to be much, just one or two lines) somewhere (perhaps the Auckland region article) about this movement? Obviously if this develops we will need to add it at some stage but IMHO, we can probably add something now. Nil Einne 23:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: this is just continued thoughts along the lines of what had already been happening of smaller ones joining up within auckland. For instance Papatoetoe no longer exists, but has instead disappeared inside manukau city. An unfortunate development I suspect. Mathmo Talk 04:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greater city calls 

message: If someone could find the dates the twin city relationships were established that would be great
--Davidkazuhiro
:AFAIK Auckland has no twin/sister cities. Auckland City does of course, as does Waitakere City and I assume Manukau City and North Shore City... Nil Einne 09:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sister Cities 

message: Do other people here also feel that Auckland and Sydney share many similarities, both superficial (harbour city with its main CBD south of a long bay heading inland, ferry transport, sea-'themed' recreation) and maybe deeper? I found the resemblance striking, having been only a week in Sydney last year. MadMaxDog 07:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: nah, there is nothing surprising about it. Is natural for many cities to form around harbours for instance. Many other similarities are due to them being just across the ditch, no surprises there either they should then be so similar. Mathmo Talk 04:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Auckland vs Sydney

message: Shouldn't this go somewhere in the opening para ?? Isn't that one of the informal names that  Auckland is known as ?  --Biatch 07:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in the Leisure section - personally I do not think it is THAT important, even though it is a relatively official slogan (which some currently intend to change). MadMaxDog 09:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "City of Sails" 

message: Auckland has "genuine slum tenements in the lower income neighbourhoods"?  Where? Moriori 22:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haven't seen any, but then I am new to Auckland. "Slum tenements" brings things to mind other than state or beneficiary housing, though. Run-down residential buildings ain't automatically slums. MadMaxDog 05:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And neither are they tenements. Moriori 05:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What? Really? Slum Tenements?

message: Have a mind to revert the 'expensive' part about Auckland public transport, but then I am from Europe, where the same trip easily costs twice or more. What do the locals think about the prices? MadMaxDog 05:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a quick skim though some of the other public transport articles and Auckland didn't seem much higher. I pay $99 per month for unlimited bus travel in the isthmus and have a bus very 5-10 minutes during peak and 20 minutes offpeak where I live. Just getting parking in town is $5 per day so I don't really thinking people are using cars because it costs less than buses. - SimonLyall 06:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Would disagree with the 'not a rich country' part. Surely, per capita, NZlers are in the top 20-30%, worldwide? MadMaxDog 08:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Statistics NZ, "NZ in the OECD", NZ has a 23,200 US Dollar per year purchasing power. The OECD, which is not exactly a poor nations club (as it says in the Wikipedia entry, it is an organisation of DEVELOPED nations) has an average of 26,300. So maybe NZ has not the large capital base, but it certainly could afford first-class public transport. The will (and public interest, to be sure) wasn't there in the last decades. Also as stated earlier, Auckland DOES have a low density, which is always a killer for comparative efficiency of public transport. MadMaxDog 08:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Public transport

message: I've just discovered this article and... well, it needs some work, to say the least. It is in danger of being a fork of the Auckland urban area article, though I can see the point of it, given recent talk of the authority merger. Anyone interested in trying to do something with this article, please take a look... Grutness...wha? 08:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've prodded it. The idea of the authority merger was ditched  very quickly.-gadfium 19:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a bit of two minds on deleting this (but then I'm inclusionist). Wasn't the Super-City mooted in the past? Isn't it likely to come up again (be it in 5 months or 5 years? I think it might make sense - if somebody cleans it up - am I the only one who sees a weird boxed jumble with ALL the text on the right in that article, BTW? MadMaxDog 09:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a little section on government in this article can cover it. Also things like the ARC, ARA etc? - SimonLyall 11:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've fixed the most immediate layout problem, but I don't want to spend time making the article look pretty if it's going to be deleted. The deletion will happen automatically unless someone wants to save it, which can be done simply by removing the prod tag. I won't then nominate the article for AfD, unless it fails to improve for a lengthy time.-gadfium 18:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Auckland Super-City]]

message: Click on it. On the wiki page of the image, do you people get it correctly? I don't. I can only see it again once I click for the high-resolution version. MadMaxDog 04:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see it on the Auckland page, and on the high-resolution page. I don't see it on the page in between (which isn't all that unusual in itself, except I still can't see it after I've gone to the high resolution version). I don't see that as a reason not to include the reduced version in the article.-gadfium 05:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I would see it as a reason. I also would like to increase the size of the thumb so that it can be seen a bit better in the article. Is there a way to fix the problem? You say its not that unusual?MadMaxDog 09:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: There is something different about this image; I can see MediaWiki trying to render it, then giving up. My guess is that the image servers are too busy to resize such a large image in some given time, so they give up. Sometimes they do have time, so the image is resized and cached, and then there's no problems until someone wants a different resolution again. I had no trouble just now resizing it to 450 px, but I couldn't get a couple of other options I tried.-gadfium 18:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New panorama picture

message: Didn't that get deleted earlier due to being mostly dead? What is the general opinion on that? I'm not generally opposed to it, but it should be a helpful site, and I can't see using it anyway (rather edit everything here - they ARE a sort of competition after all). MadMaxDog 07:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I recall, I deleted it when the link was dead. Now that it's revived, I'm inclined to tolerate it. I contributed a little bit to it earlier. It isn't really competition to Wikipedia, because it doesn't have the same rules about NPOV as we do (I think). If someone was to delete the link, I wouldn't restore it, but I wouldn't delete it either so long as the site stays up and non-commercial, and there isn't an edit war over the inclusion of the link.-gadfium 08:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Auckland Wiki external link?

message: Substituted at 20:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment