Category talk:Suburbs of Auckland

message: :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. The proposed is contrary to naming conventions and common sense. —Nightstallion (?) 07:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Oppose most of the above, for two reasons. First, there is no need to disambiguate unique names, so Remuera is fine without any suffix. Second, I would generally prefer to use ", Auckland" as the suffix, not the city name, unless there are two suburbs in Auckland with the same name. But I support changing suffixes from ", New Zealand" to ", Auckland", on the grounds that this is more common usage (even though somewhat against WP convention). -- Avenue 12:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed my mind on the latter following Grutness's comments below. -- Avenue 08:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or perhaps we could agree on [ Place ], [ New Zealand ] for all of them.  What I'm getting at is that they all need to be standardized (in a better way than they are now). PageantUpdater 01:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither of those are needed. The most obvious way of searching for an article would be just "Placename". That, currently, leads to either the page required or a disambiguation page - i.e., at most one more page away from the required place. Searching by city implies that the reader already knows a lot about a place; it requires far less knowledge for someone to know the country - and would be far more common for readers from outside New Zealand. if you do want to search via city name, well, that's what redirects are for. But actually having the articles at "Placename, city" leads to a two-tiered system whereby city places will have one set of modifiers in the name and rural places will have a different set (presumably either "Placename, province" or "Placename, district". Sticking with the country name or provincial name would allow for both urban and rural places to use the same types of modifier, and most NZers still tend to think of themselves in terms of the provincial names rather than anything else (someone from Manurewa would still regard themselves as an Aucklander primarily, in the same way that someone from Napier will identify strongly with Hawkes Bay). Grutness...wha? 05:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, you've convinced me that more specific suffixes than the country will create a can of worms. -- Avenue 08:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: * I would like to strongly protest at the closing comment above: proposed is contrary to ... common sense.  Contrary to naming conventions maybe, but in my opinion it is the status quo that is "contrary to common sense".  What's contrary to your common sense is perfectly sensible to me. The term is totally subjective and should not be used in closing an argument.  -- PageantUpdater 08:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, something like "Devonport, Auckland" seems much more sensible to me than "Devonport, New Zealand". But I've lived in Auckland a long time, and people who aren't familiar with the area may find the more generic ending easier to locate. I accept there are good reasons for the naming conventions. On the other hand, that closing comment lacked tact at best. -- Avenue 00:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Avenue, when you say "people who aren't familiar with the area may find the more generic ending easier to locate" ... does the generic translate to "New Zealand" in your opinion or "Auckland".  Not that I'm going to re-apply, but I feel I should have requested a move based on [ District ], Auckland. -- PageantUpdater 00:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By "the more generic ending", I meant "New Zealand". Sorry that wasn't clear. And although I would have initially been more supportive of moving things to "..., Auckland", the arguments Grutness put forward have convinced me that this would not be a good idea, and I don't think making that request would have changed the final result. -- Avenue 03:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmmm... it does seem to me perhaps this was archived after a fairly short period of time? Anyway... I'd probably have supported the move. Mathmo 00:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protest

message: I strongly believe that Papakura (and it's suburbs) should be included under the auckland urban districts, perhaps even all of counties manukau as well? Mathmo
:I agree about Papakura. However I think whatever is done here should match the definition given in our Auckland article. There has been some discussion on the talk page (Talk:Auckland#Definition.2Fboundaries_of_Auckland_conurbation) about what to do. -- Avenue 09:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the definition in our Auckland article has been broadened without any complaint, I'll update the text here to match it. -- Avenue 09:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Papakura