text:
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
Queen Street is the main street of downtown Auckland.
 * 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)

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 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. -- A l i c e ✉ 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 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! -- A l i c e ✉ 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. 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:
 * Two articles for the isthmus, called "Auckland/City Centre" and "Auckland/Isthmus".
 * 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
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
I’ve been thinking about some of the details about what would be included in a huge city Auckland guide. 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)
 * 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?

 * Hi Shaundd
 * 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).
 * 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.
 * I think Piha should keep its own article.
 * 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)

title: Talk:Auckland


text:
Talk:Auckland Region

Reason for name of article
I named this "Auckland Region" rather than "Auckland (region)" to make it clearer that it is the local authority area and has offical boundaries. Calling it "Auckland (region)" would have opened the way to debates and misunderstanding about exactly what area it included. (WT-en) Nurg 23:24, 24 Apr 2005 (EDT)

 * But the whole thing is odd. The Auckland article itself has districts which are the cities of the ARC.  It is far from clear what each of these articles is supposed to cover.  Should Auckland just be the city itself?  --(WT-en) inas 21:47, 14 July 2009 (EDT)
 * I know this is more semantics that a description of the area but if Auckland is a city in Auckland Region should not Manukau also be a city in Auckland Region? Or should Manukau be merged into Auckland city? And Waitakere should be in the city section not region section. Just a little confusing to readers who are familiar with the Wikivoyage structure and terminology. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A discussion has now started at Talk:Auckland that is relevant to this. Nurg (talk) 10:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Auckland Region


text:
Talk:Aurangabad

Hi just to let you know, Ajanta Caves are closed on Mondays, and Ellora Caves are closed on Tuesdays.

Picture
Today's picture of the day on Commons is of Ajanta & is a lovely shot. Should it be used here? Pashley (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not? I'm not sure what the best place for it is in the article, but by all means, put it there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Ajanta
Ajanta redirected to Augrangabad page, but it can be reached by road from its nearest locations. They are about 59 kilometres (37 miles) from the city of Jalgaon, Maharashtra, India. Jalgaon can be reached by Rail, Road, Air. So we need to remove the earlier redirect. —The preceding comment was added by Mahajandeepakv (talk • contribs)

 * I don't understand your argument. There is an article for Jalgaon. Are you suggesting we redirect from Ajanta to the Jalgaon article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Aurangabad


text:
Talk:Aurora (Colorado)

 * why was breweries removed from the Drink section?? They are very popular places and a good place to visit if you are coming from out of town, so I am curious as to why they were removed??? User:(WT-en) Ralphzztop

 * Please link to the deletion, --(WT-en) ClausHansen 17:28, 1 May 2011 (EDT)

title: Talk:Aurora (Colorado)


text:
Talk:Auroville

"which is still being built for about 30 years" sounds funny in English. Do you mean "which is still being built after 30 years" or "which has been being built for about 30 years"? -(WT-en) phma 19:32, 26 Mar 2004 (EST)

This is a durn interesting city if you ask me... but if we have Black Rock City guess we sure as heck can have Auroville. Anyone want to take a stab and cleaning up the text? (WT-en) Majnoona 15:57, 5 Apr 2004 (EDT)

"On Saturdays and Sundays there are lots of Indian tourists that come to see t"he Matrimandir, by no way go to see it on these days (better not to see it at all, you'll be standing in line for 30-40 min and will be able to look at the inner chamber for about 20 sec)""

I think this line is offensive. Auroville is in India ...and you'd naturally expect Indian Tourists there. I think you should change the usage here ..just mention that it is crowded on weekends and leave it at that. (WT-en) vinayak716:40, 11 August 2005 ( PST)

 * Well it took a year, but I think I've addressed these concerns... (WT-en) Cacahuate 11:04, 15 January 2007 (EST)

title: Talk:Auroville


text:
Talk:Auschwitz-Birkenau

If the town of Oswiecim ever gets its own separate page, it could be placed under Oswiecim -- but the KZ is definitely best known as "Auschwitz". (WT-en) Jpatokal 21:22, 28 Dec 2004 (EST)

 * Auschwitz is simply German name for Oswiecim, similarly as Danzig is German for Gdansk. (WT-en) Wojsyl 04:21, 29 Dec 2004 (EST)

 * That's right, but according to Project:Article naming conventions we have to use the most common name, and Google says Auschwitz 1,890,000 against Oswiecim 237,000. (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:42, 29 Dec 2004 (EST)

 * I don't have particularly strong feelings about this and maybe Auschwitz is indeed a better name for the title but for the sake of correctness: Project:Article naming conventions says "For remote or relatively unknown destinations where there just isn't a commonly-used English name, use the most commonly-used name in the local language". German is hardly a local language there so if we want to be inline with naming conventions it should be Oswiecim and Auschwitz a redirect. But I'm not against making an exception here, only consciously. (WT-en) Wojsyl 05:06, 29 Dec 2004 (EST)

 * Auschwitz doesn't really fall under "relatively unknown", and the German name is definately the one most commonly used in English. (WT-en) Blorg 11:35, 7 Nov 2005 (EST)

Auschwitz- The complex. Oswiecim- The town.
The town is indeed Oswiecim, no doubt about that. Its German name was Aushcitz, but this is a Polish site. The camp, however, was not a Polish site. It was a place created, named and operated by Nazi Germany. It's on Polish soil, but the camp itself retains its name, and it is widely used in foreign languages. I checked the Polish Wikipedia, and their article about Auschwitz is titled Auschwitz-Birkenau, and the Polish location names are obviously given a lower priority: * Auschwitz I (Oświęcim I), pierwszy obóz, głównie pracy przymusowej, pełniący również funkcję centrum zarządzającego dla całego kompleksu * Auschwitz II – Birkenau (Brzezinka), najpierw obóz koncentracyjny, potem także obóz śmierci wyposażony w komory gazowe i krematoria * Auschwitz III – Monowitz (Monowice), obóz pracy przymusowej w fabryce Buna-Werke koncernu IG Farben

--(WT-en) RamSobol

Name
I think it should be renamed to its full name (i.e. Auschwitz-Birkenau). 1Arena1hu (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

 * I agree, that's how the museum is named as well. I'll make the move in few days if nobody objects. Jjtkk (talk) 07:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

 * Seems logical to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

 * Please ensure that a redirect remains from Auschwitz because imho a lot of travelers are not aware of the full name. jan (talk) 08:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

closing times are actually last admission times
Currently one can stay in the site until 8:30 PM.

Since buses stop working at 7:30PM someone should make this information clear. I tried but I think it's cumbersome. Feel free to improve. Tvdp77 (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Add a "Cope" section?
It perhaps goes without saying that Auschwitz-Birkenau is not really anything like the places covered by our other destination articles. Without wishing to take away from the real suffering of victims and their families, I think we should acknowledge and advise about the emotional toll on visitors.

Before you even go, there's a kind of dread / anxiety weighing on your mind. When you're there, of course it can be upsetting (which is what you expect), but also disorientating, unreal and at times weirdly mundane (very unexpected). After you've left, the way you think and feel about the world will probably be permanently altered, and the memories, impressions and complicated emotions of the visit tend to linger and resurface at odd times even years later. And that's just from the perspective of someone with no known connection to the Holocaust; someone with more of a personal connection will no doubt be on a completely different level. But both types of visitor will be reading this article.

I therefore propose a short (or maybe not so short) 'cope' section so travellers know what to expect and how to, well, cope.

If people think this is a good idea, I'd invite other editors who have visited to contribute as getting several perspectives on what is an emotionally-complicated topic seems far preferable. In fact, I wouldn't really be comfortable being the sole contributor to such a section, because one person cannot possibly sum up a whole spectrum of different experiences.

On the other hand, is this whole idea and post just too obvious to mention, or else something that will vary so much for individual travellers as to make such a section pointless? Or maybe even out of scope? Your thoughts, please. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Nothing about Auschwitz shall ever be labeled "obvious". I know exactly what you mean, from having been at Berlin's Topography of Terror for a few minutes - I couldn't cope! and went, almost running, back to Potsdamer Platz. Ibaman (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I support this, too. I've deliberately avoided going to Nazi death and concentration camps: It was enough for me to cope with my irrational fear for the first week I was in Berlin that the Gestapo would grab me while I was throwing out the garbage or walking on the street and shoot me. There are other related articles that could probably benefit from a somewhat similar "Cope" section, such as the one on Dachau and the Lublin article, which includes a listing for Majdanek. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your responses, and for sharing your experiences. Would either of you be willing to help formulate a section? I'm in no rush (as always!), but it's nice to gauge opinions. Might put in a request for comment too. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I wonder if it would be best to have a Cope section at Holocaust remembrance—then we could link to it from this article, Dachau, Lublin, and other articles about Holocaust sites. Even the Yad Vashem listing in Jerusalem/West could link to it—visiting Holocaust museums can take an emotional toll too. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Good idea, although some brief remarks should be made in each of the location articles, too. As I mentioned, I have deliberately avoided going to all Nazi concentration and death camps. I did go to Yad Vashem when I was 12. It was a grim experience but I don't remember suffering from post-traumatic stress related to that visit. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

There probably should be something on the main Holocaust remembrance page, and on other destination articles. I can only contribute personal experience to Auschwitz, though. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

 * I plunged forward and started a short section at Holocaust remembrance, based on the comments in this discussion and my experiences visiting Dachau and Yad Vashem. I hope others will improve and expand it based on their own experiences and knowledge. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

 * Thanks for starting that. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

GPS
A1 and A2 had the same coordinates. I updated coordinates to 1 based on Wikipedia data (and synced this to wikidata). Could use double checking. Also note our description that says "Camp 2 is around 3 km from Auschwitz I" - that doesn't look like 3km on the map to me... Piotrus (talk) 02:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Auschwitz-Birkenau


text:
Talk:Austin

austin city limits' studio will soon be moving to somewhere downtown as part of the new city hall project.

Reformat
I reformatted this page to work a little more like the Manual of style. There's still a lot to do, though. Most of the attraction listings need vital details and reformatting, for example. --(WT-en) Evan 01:22, 13 Jan 2004 (EST) Austin City Limits will be moving to the W Hotel on 2nd Street. It should be opening in December 2010

Districts
I Austin big enough to really need a list of the "districts"? I've lived here three years and I'm not sure where some of them are.

 * I agree, the districts won't be useful to travelers as most locals don't know them. I've lived in Austin for 14 years and I'm not familiar with Pemberton Heights, Swisher Addition, or Tenth Ward.

 * Agreed, I don't see a point to the districts section. (WT-en) Jordanmills 23:00, 21 April 2006 (EDT)

 * "10th Ward" is an archaic term for the neighborhood around Holly Street east of IH-35. I think the "East Austin" section cover this area sufficiently.  Likewise, the "Swisher Addition" is part of today's Travis Heights.  I will delete the districts that link to blank pages. 146.6.191.18 11:37, 14 August 2006 (EDT)

So then Austin is compact enough that everything should just go on the main Austin page? I haven't been there, but I kinda doubt it, isn't Austin sort of big, enough so to at least split it into NWS&E? One way or the other something should happen here, either the current couple of district pages should be incorporated back into the main Austin page, or vice-versa... the pages sort of feel in limbo at at the moment... Anyone in the know want to fix this page up? (WT-en) Cacahuate 03:45, 10 December 2006 (EST)

 * Alright, I've tried to clean up the districts a bit and merge some, I don't think Austin needed that many, at least not yet. I'm unclear on the North though... Can "UT& the drag", Northwest Austin, North Loop and Hyde Park all be merged into "North Austin"? Or is there just way to much to see to fit into one article? Or should UT & the drag be merged into Downtown? Anyone out there know Austin well? – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 15:30, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

Austin is not a huge city. (period) you can walk around in one day.--76.197.37.150 12:10, 25 July 2009 (EDT)

Austin is a pretty good size city. There aren't distinct districts, however, N,S,E,& W will be suitable for Austin.

I think there's more value in noting significant neighborhoods, particularly in the denser areas surrounding downtown. Travis Heights, Soco, Zilker Heights, Clarksville, Warehouse District, Hyde Park, etc. 50.84.163.38 18:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I think "East Austin" is commonly spoken within Austin, "I bought my car in South Austin" "Let's go to Downtown Austin (6th Street)"

Style: Allow links off-site?
When I put a link off-site to restaurants, I was told that's not kosher. Should the link to the list of vegetarian restaurants be removed? (WT-en) Chip 20:41, 13 Jul 2004 (EDT)

 * It's been a long time since this question was asked, but here's the answer. We want to have the information right here on the page, rather than having a link.  This is mainly so that a traveller can just print out the page and have everything they need to see your city. -- (WT-en) Mark 04:39, 13 Feb 2005 (EST)

Mount Bonnell
The info about Mount Bonnell is incorrect. Mount Barker is the highest point in Austin at 840ft above sea level

Pflugerville
Is Pflugerville a valid suburb of Austin? If it is I would like to move it to Austin/Pflugerville --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:24, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

 * It's actually closer to Round Rock. We really only do that slash-format for neighborhoods, not for suburbs or satellite cities. So, please don't. --(WT-en) Evan 10:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

 * OK --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 10:22, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Local Alcohol
I added a local beer section under alcohol. It need to be rearranged, but I won't have the time till later. Also, wine is pretty important to the area. Being a beer person, I know little about local wine offerings. I figured I'd solicit such additions here. (WT-en) Jordanmills 15:43, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I like the beer section, and added to it with a list of brewpubs in the city. I probably forgot about somebody though. (WT-en) Mrkstvns 22:07, 25 April 2008 (CDT)

It looks like the beer section turned into a list of "Texas beers" that you can get from HEB, which doesn't make a ton of sense given the number of actual breweries in the city. But I'm also not sure if listing out even the most "popular" breweries makes sense in this section. Any thoughts? Gatewayvacations (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Borders. ..
Hi there! Well I was wondering as like I will try and edit and move Austonian stuff from main to districts, if someone could put in all the districts borders, as I've never been there, I'd liek to know so I know like where certain ones go, based on addresses. If at least, you could say most-to-all of the neighbourhoods. Please and thanks! Keep smiling, (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 15:59, 2 November 2008 (EST).

UT and the Drag
Ok, I need some help-the UT and the Drag has no info and I am merging it with Hyde Park. How to delete? Happy first day of snow in Edmonton, (WT-en) ee talk 15:51, 11 November 2008 (EST).
 * Let's hold off on this. They are two distinct areas, and though it may not have had any info in it yet, I think there are definitely enough things to go in there, just nobody has done the work for it yet. I'll see what I can come up with. (WT-en) Texugo 23:56, 11 November 2008 (EST)

 * The section of Guadalupe St. lying to the west of the UT campus and running from MLK at its south end north to 29th St. is "the Drag" and is replete with restaurants, stores, and coffeehouses.  Rather than any "Drag and UT area," the area on and West of the drag and East of Lamar Blvd. is "West Campus," dense with high-rise housing, and is seen as distinct from the University of Texas at Austin (UT).  The first three or four blocks South of the main UT Campus (South of MLK to 15th street, West of Guadalupe and East of Pearl Street are referred to as "UT area."  An eight-story UT campus building with its parking garage occupies a block on the east edge of this "UT area," from 16th to 17th Street and from Guadalupe to San Antonio street.

 * The area lying north of the University of Texas is often referred to as "North Campus.  Hyde park is an undefined area toward the north and Eastern ends of "North Campus," maybe north of 34th Street or East of Speedway and north of 32nd St.  There is no sharp boundary, in part because shuttle buses from the University run through the middle of the area on Speedway on the way to UT's Intramural Fields.  The pleasant older neighborhood East of Guadalupe and west of Duval from 38th to 45th is "the Avenues."

99.190.133.143 01:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

 * Yes, when Austin has the number of "district" articles which it currently does, then various neighborhoods will inevitably be lumped together.  I've edited the "UT and the Drag" article to make clear that it it includes West Campus and North University.  The "North Loop" article also appears to include Crestview and north Burnet.  The Hyde Park neighborhood association has a quite exact geographical definition of Hyde Park, and you have to live within a few hundred feet of its borders to be allowed to become a member... AnonMoos (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

 * I am trying to work on it- but it's difficult never been there. Keep smilign,(WT-en) ee  talk 00:12, 12 November 2008 (EST).
 * My sister lives there, and I've been there more times than I can remember. (WT-en) Texugo 00:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Cool, is it nice there in A? Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee  talk 10:31, 12 November 2008 (EST).
 * Best city in Texas by far. (WT-en) Texugo 06:05, 13 November 2008 (EST)

 * That's what I've heard. I've heard it's similar to Ed in a bunch of ways-but still very different.  I don't know if I can originally do the edits I was planning to do-could help out a little bit though.  Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee  talk 10:29, 13 November 2008 (EST).

Bad Links
The links for Kiss and Fly and Charlie's don't work anymore. 66.112.255.208 21:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

 * I have removed them. You can of course plunge forward and remove everything yourself :-) Globe-trotter (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Rundberg
I think the Rundberg safety advice needs to be made more precise. The busy Rundberg/Lamar intersection is a little downscale, but usually safe enough, and parts of Rundberg street west of Lamar are quite ordinary. The neighborhood is not the same as the street after which it's named... AnonMoos (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

 * P.S. For the city of Austin's definition of the Rundberg problem area, see http://austintexas.gov/restorerundberg ... AnonMoos (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

2018
Addendum to the above -- the Rundberg/Lamar intersection has gone downhill a little since 2014, though there's still probably a difference between Rundberg/Lamar vs. Rundberg/IH-35... AnonMoos (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

43rd and Duval bench
Not sure why this is given such a big write-up; I don't see people gathered there when I pass by. Anyway, it's closer to Julio's Cafe than to Quackenbush's... AnonMoos (talk) 07:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

 * I'm definitely not going to revert 165.225.35.21's actions in deleting the bench listing, but it didn't actually refer to the bench along Duval where you wait for the number 7 bus (as 165.225.35.21 thought). There's another bench a few dozen feet to the north along 43rd... AnonMoos (talk) 04:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Tour listings
Most of the tour listings look like they are within the exception rules at tour, but I doubt this one gives "value added" according to the Wikivoyage definition. However, I'm not sure, so I've moved it here for the time being. If you do feel it constitutes a type of tour an individual traveler couldn't do on their own if they were given the information, please explain why and move it back into the article:

Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

UT shuttles
Now that UT shuttles are shifting to no longer be free for all, you can use your CapMetro bus pass purchased elsewhere to board a shuttle, but I'm not too sure that you can buy a new pass when boarding a shuttle. This should theoretically be possible, but I don't think it's really part of the culture, and I'm not sure shuttle-bus drivers would cooperate if you tried to present money when boarding. Not sure how to try to explain this in the article, unless someone wants to call up CapMetro and try to press them to resolve this point... AnonMoos (talk) 03:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

 * I saw some guys buying day-passes as a UT shuttle-bus was idling at the end-of-route on a summer night recently, so I guess that's fine. It might be different on route 640 mid-day during the academic year... AnonMoos (talk) 09:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Districts again
The template at the top of the article says that discussion on defining district borders is underway, but the most recent comment I see on the issue is from 2014. Is there anyone here who knows enough about Austin to decide if the districts in the article make sense and make a map of them? —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

 * I think the current districts make a reasonable amount of sense, though they're very uneven in size. If there was some kind of freely-licensed base-map with major and semi-major streets indicated, I could crank out a quick-and-dirty map... AnonMoos (talk) 10:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

 * Great! How to draw static maps includes instructions for how to generate a map using OpenStreetMap, if you're willing. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

 * That page refers to creating an SVG file. I've uploaded thousands of SVG files to Wikimedia Commons, but I almost never use Inkscape (and don't like it), and I really don't see the advantage of having an SVG file consisting of vector text above a raster base-map (since font-rendering is actually one of the weak points of Wikimedia SVG software).  Anyways, here it is in all its glory, though I'm not sure exactly where and how to use it... AnonMoos (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

 * Thanks! Not exactly the style of our usual static maps, but it gets the job done. I'll go ahead and remove the discussion template. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I never noticed before I made the map that there's a kind of symmetry between Downtown extending from 0 (Lady Bird Lake) to 19th street (MLK), while University extends from 19th (MLK) to 38th street. So both can be considered to be 19 streets high... AnonMoos (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Vectorized districts map
Extends to the Austin City limits. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data:Austin_Districts.map -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Dynamic map boundary request for Austin
Anyone who knows how to do this and willing to give it some time. We could do with good map shapes for the districts of Austin in preparation for next months cotm. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

 * I think this may require design map boundaries from OpenStreetMap.--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

 * Well, I think someone created a webpage for dividing districts. Yes, here is the webpage. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk | contributions ) 21:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

 * first, You may need to provide the Wikidata ID for each districts to the OSM tag.(the answer maybe as like Tainan)--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

 * True. No district boundaries for Austin have been created in OpenStreetMap yet. So either someone adds them to OSM or a self-made district map has to be created with JSOM or geojson.io and uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. --Renek78 (talk) 22:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

 * Thank Renek78 to share geojson.io. I have try draw map(draw a poly gon) about Hyde Park, and upload to Wikimedia Commons, Am I doing is this right?--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 18:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

 * Hi Yuriy kosygin, looks good! I personally add all of the polygons into one GeoJSON, but this way also works. --Renek78 (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

 * I have try to draw a districts map of Chupei, It's use geojson.io, by the way, you need paste GeoJSON code to Wikimedia Commons(see the example). but this is not easy... You can try it! --Yuriy kosygin (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Anyone willing to work on this? --Traveler100 (talk) 06:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry... I only draw to Downtown, UT and the Drag, and Hyde Park & North Loop districts map of Austin, but I don't know how to draw East Austin, Northwest Austin, and South Austin districts map of Austin... Hi Renek78, Can you help draw to East Austin, Northwest Austin, and South Austin districts map of Austin?(see the map) --Yuriy kosygin (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Something like this maybe: Austin District Map --Renek78 (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow! your drawing the Austin map is pretty cool!--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey Yuriy kosygin, I used JOSM. It is a lot easier with this tool. Nodes of neighbouring districts can be aligned, so it looks cleaner. --Renek78 (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I used JOSM too!--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Traveler100, I added a first draft to the article. Hope it is okay. --Renek78 (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * To all then helped and contributed, thanks. Will help the task of sorting listings a lot easier. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are interested, you can draw your own map. I just started learning and I am hooked on using geojson.io to draw maps.--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikitravel districts
The districts on Wikitravel are somewhat similar to Wikivoyage's (though boundaries don't seem to be exactly defined) except that North Loop and Hyde Park are amalgamated into "North Central". AnonMoos (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Commuter rail service - where to mention?
Should the Commuter Rail System mentioned in the "by train" subsection of "get in" or in a new "by train" subsection of "get around"? Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

 * How useful is it for getting around the neighborhoods covered in this article? If we take San Francisco as an example, the BART is featured more in "Get in" but is also mentioned as useful for going between certain stations in SF in "Get around". Denver provides a different example, covering all RTD transit in "Get around", including intercity buses. But I think the key point is the answer to the question I asked above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

 * It's highly useful if you want to get from Lakeline to downtown or north-central Austin (or vice versa), and it can be kind of interesting to ride if you're a train buff, or if you're curious to see things that aren't seen from roads and highways, but it's very limited as a practical transportation tool for people visiting the city... AnonMoos (talk) 07:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Then maybe it's best to mention fully in "Get in" with a shorter statement in "Get around." —The preceding comment was added by Ikan Kekek (talk • contribs) 23:27, February 11, 2023 (UTC)

Map problem?
What is this at the beginning of "Districts"? 0°0′0″N 0°0′0″E It also seems to be in the "Get in" section of every Austin district article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not just Austin that's weird. Like Chickenman, it's everywhere. Ground Zero (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Or pretty much every article that uses mapshape. SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 20:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Austin


text:
Talk:Austin/Hyde Park

Status
Can this be upgraded to "usable"? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Austin/Hyde Park


text:
Talk:Austin/North Loop

Comments
Wow this article kind of sucks. Anyone care to explain what Monkeywrench books is and same for Room Service Vintage? —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 24.243.52.178 (talk • contribs)

 * See Project:Plunge forward. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:09, 12 March 2010 (EST)

title: Talk:Austin/North Loop


text:
Talk:Austin/University of Texas and the Drag

Comments
This page has been sitting around for a wee while as an orphan page that was originally called Austin/UT & The Drag. When I came to edit it I found I was redirected to a different page called Austin/UT and the Drag, so I managed to move the page here to overcome that technical issue. - (WT-en) Huttite 10:00, 29 November 2009 (EST)

Factoids
I split this page into factoids by inserting line breaks between trhe sentences because a single block of text was unintelligible to me at first glance. Amazing what some white space does. Now I can see all the listings. - (WT-en) Huttite 10:00, 29 November 2009 (EST)

Merger
I am proposing merging this article with Austin/UT and the Drag but am not sure if we have the best name yet. -- (WT-en) Huttite 10:00, 29 November 2009 (EST)

Article name
My comments about the name of the Austin/UT and the Drag article also apply to this article. - (WT-en) Huttite 10:00, 29 November 2009 (EST)


text:
Talk:Austin/UT and the Drag

Article name
Austin/UT and the Drag as a name kinda threw me as I didn't understand what the place was about. The title of this article probably should be Austin/University of Texas and the Drag, but that is a mouth full words to say and using and in an article title make it sound like two separate places! I notice that Austin/UT also redirects here. Would it be better to call the district that or Austin/University of Texas and discuss both the campus and the surrounding streets together or else do it in separate sub articles, if need be. Besides if you asked anybody from Austin where is the UT? would they know what you mean and be able to direct you there. Would they ususally call it UT and the Drag or just UT or something else, like Texas U, the University, Uni, etc.? - (WT-en) Huttite 09:45, 29 November 2009 (EST)

 * It lumps together several areas which would be considered somewhat distinct neighborhoods by locals (West Campus, North University, etc.). "Texas U" and "Uni" are not common local names for the University... AnonMoos (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

300 E. 30th St mural
The bent watch, which was the Dali component of the Chagall/Dali/Warhol tribute mural, has now been painted over by an overripe banana. Not sure if it's vandalism or what... AnonMoos (talk) 11:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Austin/UT and the Drag


text:
Talk:Australasia

Urgh. This page is going to have to get trimmed. For the love of pete, please, folks, no more of these hierarchical lists from hell. -- (WT-en) Evan 08:32, 10 Nov 2003 (PST)

Sorted. -- (WT-en) nurg

I trimmed the individual Pacific Islands from this page and refered to their collective regional pages (Oceania, etc.), leaving only Australia, New Zealand as the major countries. Papua gets a mention as it is the largest remaining island, though perhaps that should be moved too.... -- (WT-en) Huttite 08:53, 14 Feb 2004 (EST)

The 1st para of the article is unclear. If it is primarily ..., what is it secondarily? What are the islands surrounding Oz & NZ? Are the Pacific Islands of Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia included? Personally I favor a broad rather than a narrow definition. (WT-en) Nurg 01:47, 11 Mar 2004 (EST)

 * I reckon that Australasia is ONLY Australia, New Zealand and the very large island of New Guinea - (Papua New Guinea and (West) Papua) I would also accept Lord Howe Island and Norfolk Island (Australian dependencies) as well as New Caledonia (French Dependency) and the Kermadec islands as these are all between New Zealand and Australia and ride on the same techtonic plate. All the other island nations (currently) listed on this page are Island nations and fall under Islands of the Pacific Ocean or Oceania.  Technically I suppose that Australasia is part of Oceania too, so should be listed there too. As I understand the Geographical hierarchy, the Continents are used, with a separate Island nations continent.  In a stricter reading that would make Australia the same as Australasia.  Rather than listing all the individual pacific islands under Australasia, they should be listed in their Island super-groupings, like Polynesia etc. with Australasia refering to them as nearby regions, rather than individually. -- (WT-en) Huttite 04:54, 22 Mar 2004 (EST)
 * PS: I have now reverted Island nation edits by (WT-en) Akubra, and will move any missing ones to Oceania. (WT-en) Huttite 05:49, 22 Mar 2004 (EST)

 * Wikipedia defines Australasia as the area that includes Australia, New Zealand, New Guinea and the many smaller islands in the vicinity, most of which are the eastern part of Indonesia. So it includes part of Asia. The article also says that it is more an ecoregion than anything else. So, I wonder if this term can be used for a tourist region. I'm tempted to think that it should be replaced by Australia and Oceania or something similar, in order to have a Pacific section, comparable to the other continent sections. It could be divided into Australia, Polynesia, Melanesia and Micronesia. That is why I added the Pacific islands to this article. I think either the islands go out or we have to change names. (WT-en) Dhum Dhum Akubra 11:29, 24 Mar 2004 (EST)

 * I see Australasia as being a subsection of Oceania. Yes I agree with the Wikipedia description, but the smaller islands are generally those in the Torres strait and Timor sea, and lie between New Guinea.  This probably means East Timor and parts of Indonesia should be listed, or at least metioned in the Australasia article. However, places like the Solomon Islands, which is in the Pacific Ocean north-east of Papua New Guinea should be in Melanesia.  Similarly Polynesia should include New Zealand but the other polynesian islands should not appear in the Australasia article.

 * I think the problem lies in how Wikivoyage separates the Island Nations from the other continents. If you change Australasia to Australia and Oceania, this means that the continental listing for Australasia should become simply Australia, since the country is a continent and everything else wold then be listed under Island Nations.  Frankly I think that would be a bad move.  There are notable geographical, political and social reasons for having an Australasia entry.  In many respects Oceania is an artificial construct of the CIA, and perhaps only exists in their mind.  Nowhere do I know that the people of the Pacific are collectively referred to as Oceanians.  Pacific Islanders is probably politically incorrect by now and the term Pacific Peoples is seen as less offensive, though clumsy, and is social not geographical. The terms Pacifica or even Austronesia could be used, though they are probably more social than geographical.  We could even use the old romantic term South Sea Islands. Unless we restructure the Project:Geographical hierarchy, I think we should stick with Australasia and indicate it is a subsection of Oceania.  Besides, to travel to many of the islands you need to transit through Australasia anyway. - (WT-en) Huttite 08:24, 25 Mar 2004 (EST)

 * I think we are agreed that this page should more-or-less follow the 'pedia definition so I'll be bold and edit it. Akubra suggested "either the islands go out or we have to change names". I think Huttite and I agree with the 1st option so I've done it. The other islands are all in Oceania and there are links between the 2 articles so that's fine. While I don't think renaming Australasia would have been right, Akubra's suggestion could be applied to the Main Page. On 11 Nov 2003 I did to the Main Page pretty much what Akubra suggested and changed "Australasia" to "Australia/Oceania". That change was quickly reverted. Is there merit in reconsidering a change like that to the Main Page (but not the Australasia article itself)? (WT-en) Nurg 04:29, 26 Mar 2004 (EST)

Going, Going...
This page is nearly devoid of places that link to it, and now has a limited life. If you would be sad to see it gone, please raise and objections at Talk:Oceania. --(WT-en) Inas 04:37, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Gone...
gone.. --(WT-en) Inas 00:11, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Australasia
This is a very ambiguous term, and it does not mean the same thing as Oceania as Australasia also includes parts of Eastern Indonesia as well (according to the WWF), and does not include much of Polynesia nor Micronesia. And then whether NZ is part of Australasia is very ambiguous. Or to be more precise, there's no clear cut definition for what's part of this region, but only Australia and New Guinea seem to always be considered as being part of Australasia, so given the high ambiguity with this term, delete. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that as a redirect to Oceania (which it currently is), it is problematic. However, in my experience, it is not usually ambiguous as to whether NZ is part of it. It is more common for people to wrongly think it consists of NZ and Australia only. I suggest reverting to the extra-hierarchical region that it was in May 2017. Would there be anything wrong with that? Nurg (talk) 05:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That works better than deleting it, since when I nominated this, I didn't think that it would also be a search term as well. If needed, I suppose a little bit of the Indonesian section could also be mentioned, but that's something to be decided on later. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Also pinging who redirected it if they would like to comment SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I also feel this a better solution than deleting. Tai123.123 (talk) 05:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, an extra-region seems most useful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Write it as an extra-region. /Yvwv (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Outcome: Made an extraregion. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Australasia