Talk:Mayor of Auckland

message: I'm moving this from the :Category: Auckland, simply because this isn't really a geographical article, and all the articles there are geographical ones. If anyone feels it should be there, that's fine - it won't take much doing to put it back! [[User:Grutness|Grutness talk ] 06:10, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Category: Auckland

message: Elizabeth Yates (mayor) is in the category mayor of Auckland, and I think she sort of belongs there. But she was actually 'only' mayor of Onehunga, when it wasn't incorporated yet. We will eventually have to distinguish between the mayors of Auckland (Auckland City today and the precedessor entities of that Auckland in the area of today's Auckland CBD) and those of other parts of Auckland. Ingolfson (talk) 06:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Onehunga & other parts of Auckland 

message: I was wondering about the system of counting mayoralties. It's different to how American presidencies are counted. This from the American definition:
A presidency is defined as consecutive time in office served by a single person. For example, George Washington served two consecutive terms and is counted as the first president (not the first and second). Gerald Ford assumed the presidency after the resignation of Richard Nixon, serving out the remainder of what would have been Nixon's second term. The fact that Ford was not voted into office does not affect the numbering, which makes him the 38th president. In addition, under this numbering, Grover Cleveland is counted as having two separate presidencies, having served two non-consecutive terms.
So, going by that system, Auckland would have had:
*39 different mayors (as it's currently shown), but
*Dove-Myer Robinson would have been the 32nd and 34th mayor
*Colin Kay would have been the 35th mayor, and so forth.
*the current mayor would have been the 39th and 41st mayor
Is this deliberately different to the American presidential system? Has this discussion been had before in the NZ context? Schwede66 (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counting mayoralties 

message: The election is over and the new mayor is known. Should we now not treat Auckland as a continuing entity with greatly expanded borders. 20 years ago (and before) there were also substantial changes (eg Newmarket Borough, Mt Eden, Mt Roskill, Onehunga etc etc) but it was still Auckland that continued. Therefore should we treat Brown as the first mayor of Auckland? I dont think so.Rick570 (talk) 07:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't remember the 1989 changes very well, although I was an Auckland resident that year (I was travelling for work a lot, and not much following NZ politics). Our article Mayor of Auckland City treats the mayoralty as continuous over that change. My feeling is that the Auckland Council is a sufficiently different body from the Auckland City Council that we can say that Len Brown is the first major, and certainly he is not the successor to John Banks. The edits to his article, and the split out of Mayor of Auckland seem to indicate most people feel likewise. It is certainly worth having a discussion on the differences in our treatment of the 1989 changes and the 2010 changes. -gadfium 19:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In a very short time no one is going to be interested in the mechanics of setting up the supercity or of its former constituent parts. It will be just Auckland with a continuous municipal history going back to 1871 and before. Its borders have changed over the years but it has always been Auckland. Will some enquirer in say ten years be interested that there was some spiritual change to Auckland so that the 34th or 35th Mayor of Auckland was suddenly succeeded by the first Mayor of Auckland? I think we have now got to think of the big picture. The borders of the city of Auckland have been reorganized and the 36th Mayor (if that is correct) certainly has a bigger job than his predecessors. The technicality of boundary change is just part of the history (worth a few sentences in the page on the history of Auckland and separate articles on the historic cities of Waitakere, North Shore, Manukau etc.Rick570 (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with gadfium here. Accuracy and history go hand in hand, and nearly all articles about NZ places contain history and need a tidy timeline to follow, so I say we should differentiate. I can't see how we can do it otherwise without creating a right mess and the potential for lots of edit wars. We need to look at categories too - The present cat "Mayors of Auckland" should be changed to "Mayors of Auckland City", or if its doable, add time brackets to the category or something. I took Elizabeth Yates (Onehunga) and George Hawkins (Papakura) out of there already, since they were never mayors of Auckland, couldn't see any others like that at a quick glance, but that's something to watch for too. Kahuroa (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Re the categories, maybe we could think about an overarching category for mayors of ak  and have the mayors of the new council and those of older entities in the region as subcats Kahuroa (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems entirely sensible. To differentiate Auckland would need something like Auckland (borough); Auckland (city); Auckland City. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 21:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose I am asking for us to see the recent history of Auckland in the way that it will be seen in the future (and the near future at that). I think we will create a great muddle if we categorise now on the basis of very current events. These events should certainly be recorded but It is inevitable that the supercity reforms will just be seen as a change in the borders of Auckland and the continuation and completion of a centralisation which began in the 1950s with the creation of ARA and the great local government revolution 20 years ago when many Auckland local authorities were abolished and included in the various cities. Of course accuracy and history go together. This analysis is completely factual. It is actually what has happened and it will be the way that it is viewed in the future. To now design structure in wikipedia which does not take account of the big picture is to really tie our hands and to make things very complicated for readers in the future.Rick570 (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with gadfium too; there is a big enough difference between Auckland City and the new Auckland that we should not gloss over it. Rick570, suggesting that others who disagree with you are not seeing the big picture seems condescending. We might see it perfectly well, and still disagree with you. --Avenue (talk) 02:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Recent events are to fresh in our minds I think. It is certainly revolutionary not to have a regional council any more. It seems that Auckland may lead the way and the two tier system introduced under the RMA is doomed for the whole country. In 10 years that system might seem to have been just a temporary departure from the norm. The whole local Govt system as it existed in Auckland in the last 20-30 years will seem quite quaint - as will the various cities which are about to cease to exist. I am sorry Avenue to have offended you. I certainly did not intend to. I am very sorry.Rick570 (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

text: On balance, I have to say that I agree with Rick570. To have gone from Auckland as we knew it to the super city is not that different from what happened at the 1989 local government reforms. I can't claim to know the history of Auckland too well, but I know how Christchurch developed. When it became a city in 1862, it covered an area that we now call the central city. A few years ago, Banks Peninsula got added to it. And what happened in between happened in numerous steps. We still call it Christchurch, though. What we should discuss here is why the latest Auckland reform is different from all the previous reforms. As yet, I'm not convinced that it is in fact that different, but I'm open to good arguments being put forward. Schwede66 04:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As Rick570 says, this is pretty fresh stuff, in fact Len Brown has yet to sit in the hot seat. Kahuroa (talk) 08:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Auckland mayoralty

message: I noticed that someone's rather sneakily made the article for John Palino redirect to this page. I'm not well-versed enough in Wikipedia to fix it, would one of you like to rectify it? 219.89.44.6 (talk) 09:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And rightly so. If you want to do something useful, start the Auckland mayoral election, 2013 article and give Palino the mention that he deserves in that context. Schwede66 17:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

text: I think Auckland local elections, 2013 would be a better target for the redirect, as this article does not mention Palino. If someone was to write an article on the 2013 mayoral election, that would be better, but it looks unlikely that such an article will be created at this late stage.-gadfium 19:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Covert Vandalism

message: I don't think that we need a standalone article for the deputy mayor. Everything that is there could be covered in the main article. Schwede66 17:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No makes it easier to find on google.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fivehundredtwentyfivethousand-sixhundredminutes (talk • contribs) 00:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm unsure that Deputy Mayor of Auckland on its own meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. I'm open to counter-arguments that are based on Wikipedia's policies and practices. Google searches do not fall into that category, I'm afraid. See, for example, how deputy mayors are dealt with at the Mayor of Christchurch article. Schwede66 01:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I would second a merger. I think a subsection, such as in the Christchurch page, would be far more fluid.Kiwichris (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

text: Yes, I would also support a merger. This page can be a redirect but I don't think there is enough here to justify an article. Mattlore (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Support. The mayor and deputy mayor are best displayed in one article. We don't need two separate ones. Ajf773 (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Deputy Mayor of Auckland]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mayor of 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170202004911/http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/AboutCouncil/representativesbodies/electedrepresentatives/Documents/aucklandcouncilandlocalboardsdetermination2016_2017.pdf to http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/AboutCouncil/representativesbodies/electedrepresentatives/Documents/aucklandcouncilandlocalboardsdetermination2016_2017.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion