This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Auckland article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days

This article is written in New Zealand English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, analyse, centre, fiord) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	Auckland is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 4, 2006 Peer review Reviewed October 10, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed October 14, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 13, 2024 Good article nominee Not listed Current status: Former featured article candidate

This   level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

New Zealand Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Cities This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles Auckland Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Auckland, which aims to improve the coverage of Auckland, New Zealand, on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.AucklandWikipedia:WikiProject AucklandTemplate:WikiProject AucklandWikiProject Auckland articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

I noticed that the tourism and sport section consist of bullet pointed lists and I see that this has been criticised in the past. I think that it might be a good idea to transfer theses lists over to new pages (e.g Sport in Auckland) so that these sections can be rewritten in an encyclopedic format. MangoMan11 ( talk) 05:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC) reply

This article definitely needs to be trimmed as it is 50% above the recommended article size. Sport is certainly one section that could be removed/expanded/improved as a stand-alone article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{( Talk Contribs)} 05:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Interesting. How do you know this? MangoMan11 ( talk) 04:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC) reply

WP:TOOBIG "> 100 kB : Almost certainly should be divided". Current size of this article is marginally under 150 kB. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{( Talk Contribs)} 04:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC) reply

The lede currently describes Auckland as being recognised as one of the world's most liveable cities and provides two sources, the Economist global liveability index and the Mercer Quality of Living index. Having had a look at the Economist index in particular,it is not at all cross-cultural and heavily based on US values. The way the sentence is presented makes it sounds like the entire world thinks our city among the most liveable whereas the sources suggest more that it's mostly the western world thinking as such (and that is debatable as well). In any case I don't think there is sufficient evidence to make that statement about Auckland. I also don't think it is particularly helpful as we should not assume knowledge about US/western values from readers. Furthermore, as we cannot expect readers to know how liveability is judged in these rankings, they have little meaning and have an increased potential to mislead.

An example of a measure used for the Economist index is "discomfort of climate for travellers". Obviously to a degree what is comfortable depends on what you are used to. So are these travellers used to monsoons? Probably not, they probably mean American travellers. Another measure showing strong US bias is "availability of private healthcare" and private education. Even if a city has good education, but not good private options, it will have a lower ranking. Yes, making a ranking that captures everyone's ideas of liveability is hard if not impossible and for that reason they should probably be avoided from articles about cities. Philipp.governale ( talk) 14:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

You certainly have a point here. but it applies to the lists that various organisations create and not to any one city. Do the articles on many of the cities that rank well on the various lists include mention of those rankings, or is the Auckland article unusual in this respect? You might suggest at Talk:Most livable cities that the inherent bias in the lists make them unsuitable for inclusion in city articles, and if you gain consensus there they could be removed from all articles. Most livable cities is an appropriate subject for an article though, in my opinion. I was interested to see that Auckland ranks only 93rd on the Numbeo list. [1]- gadfium 21:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

You are right, this is not the right place as this is an issue with many city articles. I will try to start a discussion at the most liveable cities talk page, thanks for the suggestion. Interesting that Auckland should rank so lowly on the Numbeo list, that index appears to favour North American cities a great deal more in general compared to the other indexes. Philipp.governale ( talk) 08:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Gadfium: I tried to raise the issue on the Most livable cities talk page about a year ago, but haven't received any response. What should I do now in your opinion? In my opinion the burden of proof should lie on those seeking the inclusion of the rankings in city pages as inaccurate or misleading information is more harmful in this case than the absence of this information. Philipp.governale ( talk) 22:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply

You can try asking for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities. Your requested move already shows up on their project page, but that's automatic and a talk page post will appear on watchlists for project members. Beyond that I regret I have no further suggestions for you.- gadfium 03:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC) reply

The article refers to "Asians" quite a bit. I know we have this terminology come up in the media often, but is it a legit ethnic group? Asia is a very big continent with quite a few radically different cultures - Middle East, South East Asia, China, India, etc. I notice that Sydney has a finer grained breakdown and the word "Asian" is not used at all - Demographics_of_Sydney.

Is there any particular reason not to break it down for Auckland? Anon 21:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC) reply

The census lists 'Asian' as one ethnic group, it doesn't include Middle Easterners who are grouped together with Latin Americas and Africans. Traumnovelle ( talk) 09:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The photos on this page are fricking amazing! Like seriously legit good stuff, speaking for myself as a really, really bad photo taker person...

What do people think about maybe adding a photo of one of the food storage pits on Maungawhau? Or anything else that acknowledges the pre-European inhabitants of this land? 121.98.194.41 ( talk) 09:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply

By "anything else" I just mean cool photos. Like, what cool stuff do people have out there? 121.98.194.41 ( talk) 09:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Nice suggestion, I've added a photo of Maungakiekie / One Tree Hill showing the terracing. E James Bowman ( talk) 04:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia does not acknowledge anything if the sole reason is because an editor wants it acknowledged, so my reply is no. Why not spend some time perusing this website to learn what editors are supposed to do? See your talk page welcome for links. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 08:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply