Talk:Auckland Region

New Zealand Mid‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Auckland Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Auckland, which aims to improve the coverage of Auckland, New Zealand, on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.AucklandWikipedia:WikiProject AucklandTemplate:WikiProject AucklandWikiProject Auckland
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

On 20 January 2025, it was proposed that this article be moved from Auckland Region to Auckland region. The result of the discussion was moved.

Geology of Auckland Region

Should Geology of Auckland Region be referenced from this article? Blacksmith (talk) 05:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I suggest you create a new "Geology" section with the {{Main}} template linking to the geology article, and the lede paragraph of that article as the content. The existing "Volcanic field" section could be a subsection of it.-gadfium 06:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article for the Auckland super city

I have made a suggestion for merging Auckland Region into the Auckland article after the super city comes into being. Please discuss at Talk:Auckland#Article for the Auckland super city. Nurg (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Northland Region which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bay of Plenty Region which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 January 2025

It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

Auckland Region → Auckland region
Bay of Plenty Region → Bay of Plenty region
Canterbury Region → Canterbury region
Northland Region → Northland region
Southland Region → Southland region
Wellington Region → Wellington region
West Coast Region → West Coast region

– The proper names of the regions of New Zealand do not include the word "Region", which is found mostly lowercase in sources when included. Past discussions support keeping region as natural disambiguation (as opposed to putting it in parens), which I agree with, but there's no need to keep it capitalized. The decision here would also apply to lots of subsidiary articles ("... of the X Region" etc.). Dicklyon (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 12:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support—"Region" would have to be capped in nearly all of the literature for the cap to be accepted. Tony (talk) 06:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon, Tony1, and Cremastra: I request this move be re-opened. The followup move request at Talk:Gisborne District#Requested move 29 January 2025 is attracting significant opposition, and in the meantime there's a long list of proposed moves following up on this at ~~Wikipedia:Requested moves~~Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy#Current requests. I would suggest at least we put a hold on more moves until the requested move at Giborne District is closed.-Gadfium (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable. Cremastra (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little busy right now, so I'll reopen the discussion right away and then deal with the reverse-round-robin moves later, if that's okay. Cremastra (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cremastra.-Gadfium (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. "Region" is a common English noun, it is often used for a undefined area, and "Auckland region" can reasonably mean "that part of the country which includes Auckland", with no specific boundaries needed. That is not what this article is about, which is the local authority area with precisely determined boundaries, which is a MOS:PROPERNOUN. The New Zealand Gazetteer gives it as "Auckland Region" [1]. It was set up by the Local Government (Auckland Region) Reorganisation Order 1989 [2] and the other regions set up at the same time are also capitalised. I do note that Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 which set up the Council does not capitalise region and district [3], and the Auckland Council is inconsistent, sometimes using the capital e.g. [4] and sometimes not e.g. [5], so there is certainly some confusion. My arguments also apply to the other regions listed, although I haven't done the same amount of research for the others.-Gadfium (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think a new discussion should have been started as opposed to reopening the previous discussion 15 days after closure. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it comes to the same thing. Cremastra (talk) 01:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not really/necessarily. 15 days after is a fair bit of time. I do a lot of cleanup after moves are closed and I've never seen one reopened this long after. I'm not invested in the outcome, but I sometimes wait to do cleanups specifically because some get reopened within the week occasionally. It's more a concern regarding procedure. How long after is it appropriate to reopen a discussion? Hey man im josh (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say there's a hard and fast cutoff, but this is nearing it.

I closed the discussion per WP:RMNOMIN after verifying with the n-grams that this wasn't a wildly erroneous move. But the more recent discussion's shown that this issue is more nuanced, and, given the low participation in this RM, I felt comfortable withdrawing my closure. If this had had more participation in the first place I probably wouldn't have withdrawn my close. Cremastra (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gadfium: Re "Auckland region" can reasonably mean "that part of the country which includes Auckland", with no specific boundaries. That's true, but why would that be a problem for Wikipedia readers if the article was named Auckland region? Thanks. Nurg (talk) 08:50, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nurg: Not a problem for readers, as the search would still work, and not a problem for editors, so long as there's a redirect from the capitalised version so links would still work. The same would be true if we decided to move the article to a misspelling, e.g Aukland Region.-Gadfium (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per the case made by Gadfium and the discussion and result of the 2014 lowercase attempt. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per WP:LOWERCASE (part of WP:AT) that invokes WP:NCCAPS and evidence by Gadfium. WP:NCCAPS states: For multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence but we do not capitalise for other uses falling to MOS:SIGNIFCAPS. The evidence provided by Gadfium tells us that this is not always capped in sources - more significantly, government sources that are notorious for over-capitalisation. Therefore, this is not being treated as a proper noun that we should cap per WP:NCCAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support these are supposed to be proper nouns with legally defined boundaries but they aren't consistently capitalised by sources: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] Most instances from my random selection do not capitalise. I will say that these names aren't typically used, aside from Auckland and Wellington the term 'region' is typically dropped when discussing the areas which further supports a move to lowercase: [13] [14] [15] Traumnovelle (talk) 03:10, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Based on the evidence presented, the capitalized version appears to be the intentional legal name of the regions. But, as with all common words, sources end up miscapitalizing them sometimes not realizing or not giving enough attention to the fact they're proper names. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Failure of alerting. I have just realised that only "Auckland Region", and not the other six articles, appears in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Article alerts and Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Article alerts. Why are the six missing? Nurg (talk) 08:24, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]