YOU CAN EDIT THIS PAGE! Just click any blue "Edit" link and start writing!


From Wikitravel
Jump to: navigation, search


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. --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. - 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.Johnson22x 19:28, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Region or city?

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? -- 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, Manakau 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 Manakau! --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. -- 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) --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. 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. --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[1] 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[2], 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 Wikitravel 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. - Huttite 19:14, 21 November 2009 (EST)

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

Ext link

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

Queen Street [3] is the main street of downtown Auckland.

Ok, i've read the Wikitravel:External_links page and i'm still not sure where something like Auckland.Wiki ( sits within this policy. It would seem that Wikitravel 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:BrentSimpson.


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... 19:32, 23 January 2007 (EST)

Feel free to Wikitravel:Plunge forward and edit it! You can also look at our Wikitravel:Don't tout policy to back you up. Thanks! 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 --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.


Explore NZ Webmaster.

Have a look at Wikitravel:External links, which outlines what external links are and are not OK. Linking to the official America's Cup site ( would be OK, but a secondary source about the America's cup is not OK. -- 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.


Explore NZ Webmaster.

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


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. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:28, 13 April 2011 (EDT)

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

Explore NZ Webmaster.

Bus 380 for Downtown Auckland!

From Get In: "For Downtown Auckland a convenient option is bus 380 to Puhinui [...] from where suburban trains connect to Britomart station." Nonsense, bus 380 does not go to Puhinui Train Station. A 1 km walk with luggage thru Puhinui is very inconvenient. Nurg (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2013 (EDT)

That information was added more than 4 years ago. I assume you'll go ahead and make the necessary changes then, Nurg? --W. Franke-mailtalk 07:20, 7 July 2013 (EDT)
On the suggestion of W.Frank please find my response to the 380 bus route as posted in our user talk (with some edits) in reference to Auckland wikitravel page.
The 380 bus is efficient and convenient for Manukau City Centre <> Airport so should remain as an airport to/from option. While the bus route does pass the train stations as described (Puhinui station has been removed) and it is possible to catch a train downtown from those stations (agreed that it is rediculous to suggest anyone walk 1km through distant suburbs to find Puhinui station), in my personal experience the bus and train schedules do not match so the commuter could wait 45 minutes to an hour at either of the train stations depending on time of day (or night). This is far from ideal for even a local let alone a person from overseas. The areas the train stations are located are in lower socio economic areas and while i am not going to generalise or infer anything; i am not comfortable recommending the 380/train combination for the downtown destination (1) possibility of being stranded at train station in remote suburb (2) security concerns of stations and neighbourhoods outside of commuter hours 
Markg67 (talk) 07:22, 11 July 2013 (EDT)
Yes, it would only be a good option to Britomart if one was wanting to save every last dollar. Otherwise, the Airbus is much more convenient. The 360 would be good though if one wanted to catch a train going south, or going north but getting off before Britomart. I've changed the prices - I think they're right now. Nurg (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2013 (EDT)