Talk:Auckland

Race issues

I realize that racism in New Zealand is an important issue, but I don't think it's the most important thing to focus on in a travel guide. I've consequently abridged the paragraphs about Pacific Islander issues.

I also removed a lot of appeals to authority ("recent studies") as they don't really communicate much to the reader. Finally, I removed the promise to Asian travelers that they might be lucky enough to be abused by the mayor himself. For some reason, I find that really unlikely. It may be a clever jab at the then current, now former, officeholder, but I don't think it is really practical advice. --(WT-en) Evan 10:56, 29 Sep 2004 (EDT)

The mayor being talked of, a particularly abrasive career politician, lost the elections held in October 2004, so the comment has dated quickly too. - (WT-en) Huttite 03:48, 19 Mar 2005 (EST)

"Abridging" Pacific Island offending statistics exposes vulnerable tourists to Polynesian/Maori offending in Auckland,particularly in the south of the city. (WT-en) Johnson22x 19:28, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Hierarchy

I see Auckland as both a region and a city, though I do not know if it qualifies as a huge city and should have districts. The way this article is going at the moment it is collecting a whole lot of things that should be in an Auckland (city) article, when this is also talking about the Auckland (region). Is it time for a disambiguation page or something else? -- (WT-en) Huttite 17:37, 8 Jan 2005 (EST)

Yes, it needs to be cleaned up. There should be both Auckland (region) and Auckland (city). I don't think districts are needed but Auckland (region) should contain Auckland, North Shore, Manukau and Waitakere. These are then further broken down using sub-pages e.g. North Shore/Devonport. The real problem is that NZ usage is so loose e.g. Auckland Airport is actually in Manukau! --(WT-en) Nzpcmad 13:59, 10 Jan 2005 (EST)

I am feeling that a Huge City template is probably worthwhile here. Some explanation is needed that the historic Auckland (province) once covered the upper half of the North Island (in the 1840's) and some might think it still does, and others might think it could in the future, because of the way the term Auckland is used in New Zealand. Should we be talking about Greater Auckland or Metropolitan Auckland, the Auckland region or just Auckland? They all mean sort of the same place but are also different things to different people. -- (WT-en) Huttite 03:48, 19 Mar 2005 (EST)

Go for Greater Auckland for the region (the four cities). One of these four is Auckland, the actual city (Queen Street et al) --(WT-en) Nzpcmad 01:35, 20 Mar 2005 (EST)

There are 3 "Aucklands" and these have been sorted out over at Wikipedia. There is (1) Auckland Region (a local authority and the boundaries are therefore precisely defined), (2) Auckland metro/conurbation (not an official entity and therefore there may be debate about which outlying localities should be included in it) and (3) Auckland City (a local authority, precisely defined boundaries, one of several "cities" that make up the metro). We needn't worry about the historic province these days. IMO the main article should be about (2) and should be called "Auckland" - in other words, the present article is basically ok. An article is needed for (1) so I have created Auckland Region as a regional umbrella for places outside the metro like Wellsford, Warkworth, Helensville, Pukekohe, Waiuku. See Talk:Auckland_Region for why I chose that partic article name.

Less clear cut is how to handle the subdivisions of Auckland metro. The London and Tokyo model would be to go Auckland/North Shore then Auckland/Devonport rather than North Shore/Devonport or Auckland/North Shore/Devonport. At present New York (city) has gone the Auckland/North Shore/Devonport way, e.g. New York (city)/Manhattan/Greenwich Village, but this has been questioned and may change. I think I prefer the London model. Adopting it would probably mean changing the likes of Waitakere to Auckland/Waitakere. (WT-en) Nurg 00:52, 25 Apr 2005 (EDT)

The articles have really evolved into separate cities articles. This article can't both be the main Auckland article, and have districts. Since the Auckland Region article is already part of the hierarchy, and since this article mainly just covers Auckland city, I'm tempted to just remove the Districts from this article. The geography is already well described here, and at the regional level. Having an Auckland District of Auckland City of Auckland Region is more than any traveller should have to bear. --(WT-en) inas 19:26, 15 July 2009 (EDT)

Auckland local government currently is being revised, with Proposals for Wards, Local Boards and Boundaries for Auckland just being announced by the Auckland Transition Agency and are now out for consultation and public submissions. However, it appears that the name currently being settled on for the combined "supercity" is going to be Auckland, which refers to Greater Auckland, or most of the Auckland Region, not just Auckland City. At this time, I think all that can be said is that Auckland is likely to be the best Wikivoyage name of the main supercity article. All the other separate city articles are likely to have at least one, if not more, district articles each, though those district names are possibly going to change over the next little while. Since the supercity structure might take a while to stabilise, it might be unwise to implement significant changes concerning Auckland at the moment. Until such time as these plans are settled, and formalised, it might be best to leave things as they are. - (WT-en) Huttite 19:14, 21 November 2009 (EST)

We're now a few years further, what shall we do with the Districts section? --(WT-en) globe-trotter 08:11, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

Ext link

• So do we link to streets? I know business associations have sites a lot of the time these days, but I dunno if that's the same things as an "official" link? (see Project:External links)

Queen Street is the main street of downtown Auckland.

Ok, i've read the Project:External_links page and i'm still not sure where something like Auckland.Wiki (http://auckland.wiki.org.nz) sits within this policy. It would seem that Wikivoyage cannot really drill down to the level that something like a CityWiki is trying to achieve and is rather more concerned in providing a generic overview for the traveller who is considering going to Auckland rather than a granular view of individual restaurants, pubs, bookstores, etc... I'd argue that because Auckland.Wiki is a wiki and not a commercial enterprise or guide-book that it's inclusion as an external link is warranted out of a sense of wiki community. User:(WT-en) BrentSimpson.

Spam?

Some of the attractions listed in the "Do" section of the article seem strange. I lived in Auckland for quite a while and used to frequent Yifan's myself, but wouldn't rank it as one of the city's top 10 things for a tourist to do. Caluzzi Bar seemed a bit out of place too, especially when visiting Parnell, K-Road (itself), Bastion Point, etc. aren't mentioned... 84.9.128.198 19:32, 23 January 2007 (EST)

Feel free to Project:Plunge forward and edit it! You can also look at our Project:Don't tout policy to back you up. Thanks! (WT-en) Maj 23:04, 23 January 2007 (EST)

Staying Safe

I really think more details are needed for area of auckland to avoid. Not really that I consider parts of auckland to be as area in the worst parts of LA but because I think most tourists might be very neive and not recognise when they are in a area they shouldn't go to. From my time living in Europe I feel that they simply to not regonise there are bad areas in NZ!!!. I would be quite concerned for my friends if they came here if they decided to have a better look around outside centrel Auckland without some showing them around.

Plunge forward --(WT-en) Inas 06:06, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Adding links to websites

I would like to add a website link to My America's Cup and Pride of Auckland listing under Auckland's Do section. The pages that I am linking to give further information about the trips mentioned, have no booking options and doesn’t even mention that you can book a trip online. My main reason for listing the links is if a surfer is interested in a trip, they can easily click on the link and read more. My links keep getting taken down. The only thing I can think of is that the site can take bookings but the surfer will have to go deeper into the site to do so. I'm am not providing a link to the website a sales tool, I have listed it to make the surfers life easier and the Wiki Travel experience will be more convenient. I don't want to post links to the website again until I get the okay to do so.

I look forward to hearing your feedback.

Regards,

(WT-en) Explore NZ Webmaster.

Have a look at Project:External links, which outlines what external links are and are not OK. Linking to the official America's Cup site (http://www.americascup.com/) would be OK, but a secondary source about the America's cup is not OK. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:40, 11 April 2011 (EDT)

Thanks for you response Ryan. The documents says that you can add links to the official web site for a museum, park, or other attractions. We would fall under attraction. If I changed the wording then would it be okay to list a link?

As for the Pride of Auckland, that is the name of our fleet of ships so our website it the official source. I am linking to the main page information page of Pride of Auckland so it isn't enticing sales in anyway.

Regards,

(WT-en) Explore NZ Webmaster.

Per Project:Don't tout you're welcome to add a SINGLE listing for your company, but you've already added one for whale & dolphin tours, so I'm not sure why another listing would be needed. Have a look at San Francisco/Fisherman's Wharf#Bay cruises and ferries for examples of similar tour listings in the San Francisco article - if you want to remove your existing link and update the appropriate "Do" section of this article to have a similar style please do so, but remember that this site is a travel guide and please write your listing appropriately. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:55, 12 April 2011 (EDT)

I’ll have a go at writing a listing that covers all of our trips in Auckland. I’ve looked online at some travel guides so will try to keep my listing in with that style. Thanks for your time and hep Ryan.

Regards,

(WT-en) Explore NZ Webmaster.

I tweaked the wording slightly to sound less like an advertisement and converted the listing to use standard formatting. Based on the current wording it's not clear to me if you offer dinner cruises, America's Cup cruises, and wildlife cruises or if all of your cruises are on an America's cup yacht, so some clarification would probably be helpful. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 18:28, 13 April 2011 (EDT)

Thanks for all your help Ryan, I appreciate it. Hopefully the listing is now okay :)

(WT-en) Explore NZ Webmaster.

Rewrite intro/understand

I just read the Sydney guide and then the Auckland one in comparison. I'm not sure what the general policy on tone is but the Auckland one seems pretty uninspiring. Not being from anywhere near Auckland I'm hesitant to plunge in and rewrite it, but guessing a bit of rewrite to make it more positive it would probably be a pretty helpful exercise considering its generally the first place people end up in New Zealand. Thoughts/volunteers? Or should I just plunge forward.

Something along the lines of:

Auckland is New Zealand's largest city and commonly the first arrival point for most visitors to New Zealand. It is a vibrant multicultural city spanning two huge natural harbors, and is commonly ranked among the most livable cities in the world. Within the city boundaries lie its cosmopolitan center, diverse suburbs, beaches, native rain-forests, islands and a multitude of dormant volcanoes. The cities residents love of harbor setting has led to to its nickname, the city of sails...

- Just a start, will try tidy it up a bit later. --Armin-t (talk) 05:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't like the tone of either.

Less subjectively, I would prefer for NZ rather than US spelling to be used and the grammar to be correct.

Obviously I'm biased, but increasingly many discerning travellers use Singapore airlines to fly directly to the natural attractions of the South Island so I don't think it's an improvement to reinforce traveller's ignorance that there's only one international gateway to NZ. The multicultural part perhaps does need to go in the lead - increasingly Auckland is a different country to the rest of NZ like Amsterdam is for the Netherlands. That said, all your additions are already dealt with in the "Understand" section immediately below the lead section. -- Alice^✉ 06:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

As per the heading, I propose to rewrite understand also. What is the policy on tone? That was just a suggestion I knocked up in 2 mins, as noted obviously it can be improved re content, grammar and spelling. What would you suggest re the into then? I don't think a random fact that its the most isolated city with a population over a million, or the fact the councils were amalgamated in 2010 are worthy of the intro blurb. I'm sure the discerning travelers use Singapore air to chch, but all long haul flights from the US, and the majority from Asia still end up at Auckland, 70% by what I could find online (hence my thought on the importance of the intro being improved). Don't get me wrong, I don't particularly like Auckland and think travelers should get out of there as soon as possible, I'm just proposing we have a go at it and make it a little more relevant, positive and coherent. --Armin-t (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

If you have a colour screen and you haven't changed your personal CSS to change the way hyperlinks display, then the word tone in my comment above should be in a blue colour (signifying it is an internal link). Click on it, and it should take you to Wikivoyage:Tone. Ah, my mistake - that used to be a shortcut but now we have an article on a town in Japan of the same name, so the shortcut has changed to wv:tone - sorry! -- Alice^✉ 02:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

What about

Auckland is New Zealand's largest city, sitting in the north of the north island. It houses a third of New Zealand's population, and is an an economic and transport hub. It has a large urban area, which includes two large natural harbours, numerous beaches, diverse suburbs, islands and dormant volcanoes.

Understand

Auckland is a large city, consisting of four distinct areas which were until recently operated as separate cities. Manukau in the south, Waitakere in the west, North Shore in the north and Auckland City itself, sitting in the center on and around the isthmus. Auckland also contains a number of smaller urban areas and also some nearby islands, most notably Waiheke Island. Further information on the other cities, rural areas, small towns and the islands of the Hauraki Gulf can be found in the Auckland Region article.

Auckland houses approximately 1.5 million people, making it around four times larger than the next biggest New Zealand city. This size gives it a large voice relevant to the rest of the country. Given its large cosmopolitan nature it is often seen by some New Zealanders as being quite different from the rest of the country. Likewise its residents have a reputation for not caring about anything 'South of the Bombay Hills (out of the city)'. Despite differing opinions, Auckland remains as New Zealand's economic and transport hub (it houses the main international airport and the majority of company head offices). It also luckily enough, has its own beautiful landscapes and waterways, and a number of attractions to draw tourists in.

Auckland is often called the "City of Sails" for the large number of yachts that grace the Waitemata Harbour and the Hauraki Gulf. It could also be called the "City of Volcanoes". Much of its natural character comes from the fact that it is built on the Auckland Volcanic Field which consists of about 50 volcanoes. All of the volcanoes are individually extinct but the volcanic field as a whole is not.

Auckland rates well in international quality-of-life polls, consistently rating among the most livable cities in the world. It features a large number of urban beaches and parks, numerous arts and cultural institutions and events, and is home to a multitude of sporting teams. There is also the cities aforementioned love of sailing - 135,000 yachts and launches are registered in Auckland and it has notably been the site of a number or America's Cup regattas.

Auckland is a very multicultural city, and has a strong immigrant culture (40% of Aucklanders are born overseas). Auckland has the largest Polynesian population of any city in the world. For some Polynesian island nations there are more expatriates living in Auckland than in their homeland. It has a large population of New Zealand's native Maori people, and it is also home to many immigrants from England, Asia and around the world. Auckland's rich cultural mix is celebrated with a wide variety of festivals and events throughout the city.

Climate...

Feel free to edit/improve. --Armin-t (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that the second paragraph should go before the understand heading, as it is partly there for page navigation. There should also be links to the other city articles e.g.:

Auckland is a large city, consisting of four distinct areas which were until recently operated as separate cities. Manukau in the south, Waitakere in the west, North Shore (including Devonport) in the north and Auckland City itself, sitting in the centre on and around the isthmus. Auckland also contains a number of smaller urban areas and also some nearby islands, most notably Waiheke Island. Further information on the other cities, rural areas, small towns and the islands of the Hauraki Gulf can be found in the Auckland Region article.

The existing "the most isolated city with a population in excess of 1 million" may be a point worth keeping somewhere. AlasdairW (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I really liked your first attempt at the lead paragraph (including the references to common first entry point and multiculturalism). It was snappy and made me want to read on. Some of the description was perhaps flowery, but travel guides need to draw readers in. The second attempt is much drier and sounds bland. Different people like different styles, but I've always thought the lead paragraph should tell (sell) the reader why they'd want to visit the destination.

I agree with AlasdairW comments. -Shaundd (talk) 22:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

That is along the lines of my thoughts on why it needed a bit of a boost. I always enjoy travel writing that helps you get enthusiastic about the destination. AlisdairW's comments make sense also. Auckland seems to be verging on requiring its own districts section, but that is probably another discussion and more than I'm keen to get stuck into at this stage.

I will leave it over the weekend and see who else weighs in, but otherwise look at putting up the first intro with some slightly tempered wording, with some of the stuff from the understand. --Armin-t (talk) 05:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Split Auckland metropolitan area and the former Auckland City area

The background is that until Nov 2010 the Auckland metropolitan area was divided into 4 local government cities - Auckland City, Manukau City, Waitakere City and North Shore City. WV followed this division and had 4 city articles, and no article for the metropolitan area as a whole. (There is a higher level article for Auckland Region, which is much wider than the metropolitan area.)

This Auckland article is (or was) about only the former Auckland City area, as per the desc at Auckland Region - "the central city, located on the Auckland isthmus (known as Auckland City until 2010)". In June 2014 this edit blurred the picture by removing "This article only deals with Auckland City itself" from the Auckland article.

I suggest this Auckland article be split into two articles:

• Auckland for the metropolitan area (with a link to Wikipedia:Auckland)
• Auckland Central for the former Auckland City area (with a link to Wikipedia:Auckland City)

Auckland would remain part of Auckland Region.

Auckland Central, Manukau, Waitakere and North Shore (New Zealand) would all become part of Auckland. Nurg (talk) 08:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean with last sentence, merge all the sub city pages into Auckland, or sit them under it? Anyway I agree in principal that there should be a change, as to what is best, not sure, always a balancing issue between keeping articles relevant and not to long, vs avoiding having to many pages with little content or odd branching (such as Devonport having more listings than north shore, and some of the north shore listings pointing to Devonport anyway...). Is there a guideline someone with more experience can point to? Are you suggesting they hierarchy go Auckland Region - Auckland - Auckland Central, Man, Wai, NS, or Region - Auckland (with those combined)?

What about possibly moving a lot of the information into Auckland Region section and having it sitting at top, and making that the first landing point and main Auckland page if? May involve rearranging things at a higher level which is not practical, also may be putting my travel readability over the top of classification requirements, and google results may direct people to auckland (central) first anyway. My gut feeling would be Auckland Region sits at the top with all the get in info etc, then Auckland Central, Man, Wai, Ns, Waiheke, and other small surrounding places branch of that, going with the simple rather than having an additional layer basically. Armin-t (talk) 23:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

If I'm understanding it right, Nurg is proposing the hierarchy go Auckland Region - Auckland - Auckland Central / Man / Wai / NS (I'm assuming Central, Man, Wai and NS would be districts of Auckland). It seems pretty reasonable to me. One thing that comes to mind is there's usually transit systems that cover a metro area, so a guide that covers the Auckland metro area (as opposed to the whole region) would better explain that.

A couple of related thoughts I have are:

• would all the neighbourhood articles for the North Shore be merged into the North Shore article? (I think they should)
• do the islands go directly underneath Auckland Region or in their own subregion (Hauraki Gulf Islands)? If we strictly follow WV policies, the islands should be placed in a subregion, but I'm not sure if that would provide any benefit to the traveller in this case.

Would it be worthwhile considering if Auckland Central be divided into smaller districts (e.g. Central, Parnell/Newmarket, Mission Bay, etc.) and Devonport split from North Shore? It might make it easier to grasp the main tourist areas of Auckland although I don't think there's enough listings at this time to justify it. I think I have a map of one scenario I thought of a while back but never got around to posting -- I can post it if people are interested. -Shaundd (talk) 05:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I was a bit unclear. Indeed I meant Auckland Central, Manukau, Waitakere and North Shore (New Zealand) would all become districts of Auckland (I was thinking of "isPartOf" when I wrote "part of").

Armin-t, I did think about making Auckland Region the main Auckland page but decided against that. I agree with you that it would be good to have one less layer in the hierarchy. But I think the metro deserves an article. And places like Wellsford are very different and far from the metro. And most of the "Get in" and "Get around" info fits best in a metro article.

Shaundd, merging all the North Shore articles is a separate issue and is also something I've thought about. I have already merged Bayswater into Devonport, and Greenhithe into NS. I'm leaning toward keeping Devonport and Takapuna separate, but perhaps could be persuaded to merge all of NS. For a further partial merge of NS, I would be happy with Long Bay, Torbay and Browns Bay being merged into a re-created East Coast Bays article.

I'm inclined to keep the islands directly underneath Auckland Region.

I did also think about dividing Auckland Central in two - either CBD, and rest of isthmus; or inner suburbs (Ponsonby to Parnell, Newmarket, maybe Mt Eden), and rest of isthmus. But drawbacks are: 1. the rest of isthmus might be an odd kind of rump; 2. naming is less straightforward. In the end, I don't think a single Auckland Central article will be too big. Much of "Get in" and "Get around" will be in the metro article. The See section is not too big. The Do section will be split up a bit - some of the beaches and Waitakere Ranges stuff should go to the Auckland Region article.

If we can have a single Auckland Central article though, that does give more support to doing the same for NS. So, as I said, maybe I can be persuaded we should merge all of NS. But again we can treat that as a separate issue. Nurg (talk) 10:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand the need for the layers, but having three articles named variations of Auckland (region, city, central), is confusing for the traveller, especially when the region article and low level articles are sparse. --Inas (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it's time we consider Auckland (this article) to be a huge city covering the entire urban area, and then have the separate areas (e.g. North Shore) as districts. I note San Francisco is considered a huge city despite having only 850,000 population; Auckland has 1.41 million. Lcmortensen (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Districts for example:

• Auckland/North Shore
• Auckland/Waitakere
• Auckland/Waitemata (the new Waitemata local area, incl. central city)
• Auckland/Isthmus (old Auckland City excl. Waitemata)
• Auckland/Manukau

Lcmortensen (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. My gut instinct is that any more than two layers is too many. There is some stuff that does not quite fit (in Auckland region but out of the city per se) but this can probably be managed a part of the main page, or further sub pages? Also Auckland/Central might be clearer than Auckland/Isthmus for the average traveler. And the other names, would south and west be clearer then Manakau and Waitakere? Not sure what is better, correct names incorporating te reo or more commonly used/explanatory ones. Could you combine them? Armin-t (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Lcmortensen, are you thinking this hierarchy:

• Auckland Region
  • Auckland
    • Auckland/North Shore
    • Auckland/Waitakere
    • Auckland/Waitemata (the new Waitemata local area, incl. central city)
    • Auckland/Isthmus (old Auckland City excl. Waitemata)
    • Auckland/Manukau
  • Waiheke Island
  • And so on for other places outside the urban area

And do you think we have a enough content for Auckland/Isthmus? Nurg (talk) 09:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Nurg, that's exactly the structure I was thinking of. From the current Auckland main page, we already have several listings for the proposed Auckland/Isthmus area, and I do think we need to separate the central city area from the rest of the isthmus.Lcmortensen (talk) 10:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

My ideal - Probably Istmus and Waitemata as one for now but maybe split if the get big? And then split would be Auckland Central, and Auckland Istmus (Greater) or something like that. My concern is the names are not very apparent to the average traveler without one labeled clearly as Central. As for groupings:

• Auckland
  • Auckland/North Shore
  • Auckland/Waitakere
  • Auckland/Central
  • Auckland/Manukau
  • Waiheke Island
  • Others

Get rid of the extra empty layer. Auckland 'Super City' is the focal point. Waiheke to be considered as part of Auckland, as it is accessed via a trip to Auckland anyway. This will change the format without a region (compared to wikivoyage standard?), but from the travelers point of view would there be much interest in the Auckland region not in the context of Auckland itself? Armin-t (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I support either of these proposals, they’re both an improvement over the existing structure. I have a slight preference for two layers proposed by Lcmortensen, but not fussed either way.

A couple of thoughts I have: (1) I find it odd to refer to the old Auckland City as “Auckland Central”. I lived in downtown Auckland for a year (the postal address was even Auckland Central) and my impression was Auckland Central meant downtown… so it would seem misleading to say a place like One Tree Hill is also Auckland Central. That was many years before the Super City was created and I don’t know how that has impacted people’s perceptions of what’s “central”, but it makes me hesitant to refer to the entirety of the old city as Central. (2) There should be enough in Auckland City to split it between Central/Waitemata and Isthmus. Off the top of my head, Isthmus would have Mission Bay, St Heliers, Kelly Tarltons, Mt Eden, Eden Park, One Tree Hill, MOTAT, the zoo and the Warriors/Mt Smart Stadium; Waitemata would have the Sky Tower, Rangitoto, Maritime Museum, War Memorial Museum, Art Gallery, the Harbour Bridge, the Viaduct Harbour, Parnell and Ponsonby. I don’t know if there are listings for all of these already but my general impression is our coverage of Auckland is light. Add in some shops, restaurants and hotels, plus any additional activities and attractions I don't remember, and there should be two pretty solid district articles.

Regardless of which way we go, I can draw up a districts map once it’s been decided. -Shaundd (talk) 04:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hierarchy. I agree with Lcmortensen re hierarchy. A flatter hierarchy would be nice, but we have to remember places like Wellsford and Leigh, which are well outside the urban area.

Boundary of Waitemata. There is a Waitemata Local Board map at Auckland Council. It extends all the way west to Meola reef, which makes it bigger than Shaundd presumed, and bigger than the possible article I mentioned in Oct, ie, "Ponsonby to Parnell, Newmarket, maybe Mt Eden".

Split of Waitemata and Isthmus. Wikivoyage:What is an article? says "Geographical units should be large enough in scope to have at least 4 or 5 good quality destinations or attractions". For Isthmus, the "See" section has Kelly Tarlton's, Stardome and two historic houses. That seems a bit thin. But I suppose if one counts 5 items from the "Do" section, that is enough. If instead of using the Waitemata Local Board boundary, we put Western Springs (at least) in Isthmus, that would strengthen Isthmus by giving it the zoo and MOTAT. I would be happy with either a split of Waitemata and Isthmus, or keeping them as one at present, and splitting later if they grow, as Armin-t suggested.

The name "Waitemata". The problem with the name "Waitemata" is that the Waitemata Local Board is one of the few things in that area known by the name "Waitemata", and even then I'm not sure it's very well known. The name "Waitemata" is still associated with West Auckland, dating back to the days of Waitemata City, which merged into Waitakere City in 1989. I looked at clubs with "Waitemata" in the name. Of 19 clubs, 16 were in West Auckland, 2 on North Shore and one in the CBD. I suggest a better name is "City Centre" (as in its nearest big city neighbours, Sydney/City Centre and Melbourne/City Centre).

The name "Isthmus". I personally like this name for the isthmus as a whole because it is geographically accurate. I hope it catches on in general use. But I don't think it is used much by the general populace yet.

Names including "central". Auckland Council tends to divide the city into either 4 parts (Central, North, South, West) or 5 parts (the additional one being Hauraki Gulf Islands). For the isthmus it variously uses "Central", "Auckland Central", "Auckland central", "central Auckland", "Central Area". Pre-amalgamation, Auckland City Council used "Isthmus" sometimes, I think to distinguish it from the islands, but Auckland Council doesn't seem to do that, except in left-over pre-amalgamation documents. Postal addressing, however, uses "suburb" names, and "Auckland Central" is only the downtown in that use. But Auckland Council seems to use "City Centre" for that smaller area.

So, I suggest either:

1. Two articles for the isthmus, called "Auckland/City Centre" and "Auckland/Isthmus".
2. One article for the isthmus, called "Auckland/Central".

If we go for two articles, need to decide if "City Centre" uses Waitemata Local Board boundary, or WLB with the western boundary brought in closer, or ad hoc boundary we make ourselves. Nurg (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Those names and rationale make a great deal of sense. Sounds good to me.

Sorry about the WLB boundaries. I looked at a map but it didn’t have the streets marked so I was trying to gauge if Western Springs was in or out. I like the concept of the city center district’s boundaries being Ponsonby to Parnell as you originally proposed, but when I look at the WLB map, including Grey Lynn and Western Springs makes sense. My biggest quibble with the WLB boundary is actually the piece labelled Eden Terrace; if we were to split the old city in two, I’d be tempted to say take the WLB boundaries except on the south end where it should follow the NW Motorway, Newton Rd/Kyber Pass Rd and the Southern Motorway. Anyway, I'm not sure we need to split the old City right now. -Shaundd (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Summary so far

Proposed Auckland region Auckland Auckland/Central (the old Auckland City) Auckland/North Harbour (the old North Shore City extending northwards to Orewa and the Hibiscus Coast) Auckland/West Auckland (the old Waitakere City, but not including Piha) Auckland/South Auckland (Manukau + Papakura) * Rodney Helensville Leigh Muriwai Piha Wellsford Warkworth Other destinations Great Barrier Island Tiritiri Matangi Island Waiheke Island

There’s some good discussion here and I think things are starting to become clearer. Thought it would be good to summarize the issues and propose a way forward. The proposed hierarchy is in the infobox to the right.

Levels of hierarchy Issue: One “Auckland” article with both urban and rural areas under it versus two layers with Auckland Region at the top and an Auckland article covering the urban areas below it.

Discussion: Not a consensus, but the majority of people in the discussion favour the two layer approach.

Proposal: Use the two layer approach proposed by Lcmortensen.

Should the old Auckland City be one or two districts Issue: Should Auckland City stay as one district or be split roughly along the lines of city center and the rest of the city.

Discussion: No consensus. Concerns raised there may not be enough content to justify a split right now, but could split in the future if there is more content.

Proposal: Treat as one district for now and consider splitting in the future once there is more content.

District names Issue: Should the district for the old Auckland City be called Auckland/Central, Auckland/Isthmus or something else.

Discussion: Referring to it as “Central” or “Isthmus” are both reasonable, although Isthmus is not widely used. Waitemata, while the current name of the local board covering the city center, historically was associated with West Auckland/Waitakere.

Proposal: Call the district Central (North Shore, Waitakere and Manukau would retain their names).

Thoughts?

What are people’s thoughts… does this look like a good way to move forward? -Shaundd (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Some loose ends

Map of Auckland districts

I’ve been thinking about some of the details about what would be included in a huge city Auckland guide.

1. Papakura and Manurewa - Right now we don’t have any content for these communities. The options seem to be include in Manukau, include in Franklin District or create as a separate district of Auckland. My initial thoughts are they should be included in Manukau, and if there’s ever enough content to warrant a separate district we can consider it then.
2. Orewa and the Hibiscus Coast - The area used to be part of Rodney, but is grouped with the northern part of the old North Shore City in the post-amalgamation ward system. My initial thoughts are an Orewa article should be placed in Rodney even though it’s not consistent with current administrative boundaries. Another option is to include it within North Shore district with an eye to split it out as a separate district some day when there’s enough content.
3. Piha - has its own article even though it was part of Waitakere — should it be merged?
4. Muriwai - also has it’s own article; it’s outside of Waitakere so I guess the article would stay as-is, listed as a community under Rodney. Something I’ve wondered is, from a traveller’s perspective, would it make sense to carve out Piha, Muriwai, Bethell’s and the Waitekere Ranges as a separate district given their common direction, more rural nature and popularity as outdoor destinations?

Anyway, any thoughts on the above? They’re more niggling issues, but it will help clarify what goes where when a map is drawn or content added. -Shaundd (talk) 05:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Shaundd

1. Manurewa was part of the old Manukau City, so goes in Manukau, no question. Papakura was not part of Manukau, but it is sensible to include it in that article, so I think we should change the name from Manukau to Auckland/South Auckland (and I think that is better than Auckland/South).
2. For Orewa and the Hibiscus Coast, I would go with your 2nd option and include them in the North Shore article for now. But since they are outside what has been known as North Shore, I suggest a name change from North Shore (New Zealand) to Auckland/North Harbour. There is also the question you raised in Oct, which is whether the existing sub-articles of North Shore should be merged into the North Shore (or North Harbour) article.
3. I think Piha should keep its own article.
4. I think Muriwai should keep its own article. And I think we should scrap the Rodney article. Auckland Region then would have no sub-regions (and therefore no "Regions" section), a "Cities" section with 7 items (currently), plus the "Other destinations". The Cities are:

• Auckland
• Helensville
• Leigh
• Muriwai
• Piha
• Warkworth
• Wellsford

Other than these changes, I'm happy with the proposals you made. Nurg (talk) 08:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good, I agree with your changes. Hopefully Lcmortensen, Armin-t or others will chime in. -Shaundd (talk) 05:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree, definitely an improvement. My philosophy re pages and division is more in the split when needed (bacteria like binary fission when they get to big) camp rather than (the field of dreams) build it and the will come (as there is no guarantee they will come, and prefer a tight more functional/useful guide rather than one with links to half empty pages). Hence my 'ideal' is still as per my first suggestion, but I like this also. Esp if we put some effort into putting some helpful info in the region page etc. Its a good fit, urban areas tied with outlying centers. Will be interesting to see with the continued growth if those other outlying places end up being considered more as part of Auckland as time goes on. Discussion for another day anyway.

Last idea, could Warkworth, Leigh, Helensville and Wellsford be rolled into one? Just had a look and they are all very light also. Looks like they are all smallish independent towns north of the city itself now considered rolled into the super city? Between them could have one good page - northern towns? (which is basically Rodney?? Going full circle here) Although i'll go by what you others say as my knowledge of that area and how it works is limited... Armin-t (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

If we do rename Manukau and North Shore (New Zealand), we should probably go the whole hog in moving away from those old council names and change Waitakere to Auckland/West Auckland. Nurg (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I drafted a map and put it at the top of the section. I think it captures the proposed districts -- let me know if any changes are needed. For the map, I put West Auckland as opposed to Waitakere as Nurg suggested above.

- Re treating all the northern towns as one article, I'm a bit hesitant to do that. It's a pretty large area so I think it would make it difficult to clearly say how a traveller would get into Leigh vs Warkworth vs Helensville. I think the listings in See, Do, Eat, etc would also get confusing too, unless we broke each of those sections down by community.

- For the North Shore districts, I still think we should amalgamate them into the top level North Harbour article. Districts of a district seems like one layer too many and I find it kind of odd that the North Shore would have districts but the old city of Auckland wouldn't! I am sympathetic to Devonport being treated differently since (I'm assuming) the typical visitor gets to it via the ferry from downtown, whereas most other North Shore destinations are accessed (I'm assuming again) by heading up the Northern Motorway. Perhaps Devonport listings should be grouped together in the See and Do sections of the North Harbour page? Anyway, it's probably a discussion best had on Talk:North Shore (New Zealand).

Does everyone think we can move ahead and start implementing the proposed district structure? -Shaundd (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The map looks great, Shaundd. I haven't been able to fault it. I'm happy for us to go ahead. User:Lcmortensen kicked off this round of discussion but has hardly been editing on WV since – but he has remained active on WP so presumably he has been able to comment here if he wished. Nurg (talk) 09:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

One thought for the map - would it be convenient to label Waiheke Island, even if it was just "Waiheke"? Nurg (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. Added a label for Waiheke Island and also added the ferries to Devonport and Waiheke. -Shaundd (talk) 05:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I would prefer Devonport to remain a separate destination. I visited it as a day trip from central Auckland, and I didn't visit the rest of North Shore. It has just the right amount to see and do for a day trip, and mixing it up with the rest of North Shore would be confusing.

Should Great Barrier Island and Tiritiri Matangi Island be labelled on the map? - I am not sure where they fit in the new structure. AlasdairW (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I added the ferry to Tiritiri Matangi and a label for it. Since this is a map for Auckland (the urban area), Great Barrier Island isn't on it. I'm working on a map for Auckland Region that will include Great Barrier Island, as well as other outlying communities of Auckland Region like Wellsford, Warkworth and Leigh. -Shaundd (talk) 04:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm wary of the map getting too cluttered, but is there room to label Rangitoto and maybe mark the ferry? Nurg (talk) 09:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been away from WV for a while. Everything looks okay, but I do have a few niggles with the map.

• I'm assuming the colours are temporary, and will be matched with File:Regions map template.svg before going live.
• Can we add the AT rail network to the map? It might be helpful for visitors using public transport.
• The final section of SH18 between SH1 and Albany Highway (the first brown road) is not a motorway - it's a regular state highway.
• Page 9 may help you get the road hierarchy right - we probably need to emphasis the South Eastern Highway/Ti Rakau/Te Irirangi as the access to the eastern suburbs. We may also need to emphasise the Gillies/Queenstown link between SH20 at Onehanga and SH1 at Newmarket, as this is the main airport to city route until the Waterview tunnel opens.

Lcmortensen (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the map. I'll fix 3 and 4, and see what I can do about the trains. I'm a bit concerned it will clutter the map but will see how it looks.

For the colours, what's there now is what I was planning on going with. The colours in the template are fairly saturated. Keeping the districts lower saturation allows more detail without colours clashing and makes the text easier to read.

I'll add Rangitoto and the ferry, too. -Shaundd (talk) 04:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

New version of the map is up with AT train network, Rangitoto and Upper Harbour Highway fixed. I made the South Eastern Highway/Ti Rakau/Te Irirangi a bit darker and wider so it stands out more. I didn't highlight the route from Newmarket to Onehunga since most of it is under labels.

Do we think we're ready to move forward with implementation? I think we can move forward while continuing to discuss how to handle Devonport and the other sub-districts on the North Shore talk page. -Shaundd (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Implementation

I went ahead and set up the district structure discussed above. There are still some loose ends to do, like updating the redirects and properly filling out the See, Do, Eat, Drink, Buy and Sleep sections of the Auckland article so that it reflects all four districts. -Shaundd (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Great! I'm heading there for the first time next week so will try and help. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Cool, enjoy the trip. Are you going to be there for a while or is it part of a larger NZ trip? -Shaundd (talk) 04:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately just for a 3 day business trip. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thefts and robberies are more prevalent ?

What is the basis for "thefts and robberies are more prevalent compared to the rest of New Zealand"? According to a recent report (https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2020/11/rotorua-has-highest-level-of-crime-in-new-zealand-selwyn-the-lowest-analysis.html) the per capita rate of crime in total is lower than in numerous other parts of the North Island and in Christchurch. Perhaps theft and robbery rates are different - does anyone have a source for that? Nurg (talk) 09:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)