Talk:Territorial authorities of New Zealand

message: this paragraph here:
"With the exception of Hutt City Council and Chatham Islands Council, each territorial authority is named after the area it covers, with the words "City Council" or "District Council" added. The Hutt City Council covers Lower Hutt (Lower Hutt City (Name of City Council) Act 1991); the Chatham Islands Council covers a district known as Chatham Islands Territory, and has no encompassing region (Chatham Islands Council Act 1995)."
doesn't make much sense to me. None of the names of TLAs in New Zealand are abstractions. Hutt City still represents the area it is named for (that being the Hutt, but not all, but then you'd have to make Waikato District fall under this category, and then maybe Thames-Coromandel, and then Manawatu, etc, etc). Any thoughts?
*I believe the reason for the note is to point out that, while there are two cities called Hutt, (Lower Hutt and Upper Hutt) - the council for Lower Hutt breaks the naming convention used for the rest of the councils. There is both an Upper Hutt District Council (Upper Hutt) and a Hutt District Council(Lower Hutt). The convention used for the other councils (excluding the Chatam Islands) would dictate that it should be called Lower Hutt District Council. By calling it simply Hutt District Council - it could be mistaken that this is the council for both Hutts. Malathos 20:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Names

message: I was unable to find the reference in your edit summary for this article, but the changes you made to this article seem implausible. Waiheke Island is part of the Auckland City Council, and has a population of many thousands. Is there another Waiheke Island that I'm not aware of? If so, the link should be changed. 
Our article on Mayor Island/Tuhua says it was inhabited until 1901. If it is inhabited again, our article should be updated.
The Territorial authorities section of the stats department page says "All off-shore islands, with the exception of Mayor, Motiti and White Islands in the Bay of Plenty Region, are included in territorial authorities."
For the time being, I'll remove Waiheke Island from the list as the most obvious problem. 
If you can fix these problems, please add a link to your source in the article (not just the edit summary).-gadfium 18:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must concede that I do not have local knowledge, my contributions are entirely based on Internet research. My source for this edit was  or rather the Excel file  that can be downloaded from there. In the Excel file, I found a total of six islands belonging to the Area Outside Territorial Authority. There, the island under debate is called Bays-Waiheke Island, whatever that means, perhaps a part of Waiheke Island? There is no island in existence called Bays-Waiheke Island, so I wrongly concluded that Waiheke Island is meant and that Bays is some sort of qualification. The excel file I mentioned gives these population figures for Mayor Island: 12 (1991), zero (1996), three (2001). There is no information about the type of settlement, it might just be a research station. Perhaps there is another question to be resolved: The Wikipedia article talks about "islands where the Minister of Local Government is the territorial authority". Perhaps these islands are only a subset of the "Area Outside Territorial Authority" or even islands "Outside Territorial Authority".--Ratzer 20:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Islands outside the Territorial authorities of New Zealand

message: The new Auckland governance structure does pose a problem: it's a unitary authority (combined regional and territorial authority) run by Auckland Council. The main problem is unlike the other councils, we cannot simply cut "council" of the end of it, otherwise we would call it just "Auckland", which will confuse the territorial authority with the main urban area of the new authority.
My proposal is to refer to the new Auckland territorial authority as "Greater Auckland", similar to Greater London, to differentiate between the two. What does everyone think? Laydan M (mailbox) 05:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't heard the latest news on the subject, but for the time being I think it would be more appropriate to refer to it as "the proposed Auckland City", or something like that, until such a time as the name and composition of the new authority has been gazetted. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good: but it would be better "the proposed Auckland territorial authority", as we don't know whether it's going to be a district, city, metropolis, etc. and after all it is still a territorial authority.Laydan M (mailbox) 00:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Auckland territorial authority 

message: This article needs a history section, which would help editors of other articles to determine when territorial authorities were established. --Una Smith (talk) 01:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Can knowledgeable people please add a section on funding. I've asked for this in Regions of New Zealand too, where there is now only a brief ref to income from rates, but that is just a tiny part of the story. Only part of rates goes to regions, most goes to Territorial Authorities, and regions get other income too. Also what do Regions and TAs spend, including regions contracting TAs for some services, etc. Cheers, Bricaniwi (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funding - income and expenditure