Talk:Mount Eden

Volcano or suburb?

I think that in an encyclopedic sense "Mount Eden" should be referring to the volcano more than the suburb; suburbs don't really recieve recognition in an encyclopedia, volcanoes do. Would it be worth making the article about the volcano (not the suburb)? Neonumbers 08:51, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'd leave it as both - a lot of Auckland suburbs now have entries. You'll note that the categories it leads to are Auckland Volcanic Field - where it's indexed under E for "Eden, Mt." (the volcano), and Auckland, where it's indexed under M for "Mount Eden" (the suburb). Same applies with Mount Wellington 9and will soon apply with Mts Roskill and Albert) [[User:Grutness|Grutness ^talk ]] 11:01, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Compare to Three Kings, New Zealand. Suburb and its mountain in one article just seems to work IMHO --BakugekiNZ 07:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) 10:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Mount Eden → Mount Eden, New Zealand – {reason for move} copied from the entry on the WP:RM page

Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Oppose. According to the relevant naming convention, the format "Placename, New Zealand" should only be used if confusion with places outside NZ is likely. - Avenue 23:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reason given above. Take a look at other NZ geographical articles. Only those where there are other places with the same name have "New Zealand" strapped on the end. There is no other Mount Eden with an article, therefore - as in every other such case - it shouldn't have the suffix. Grutness...wha? 00:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose As above --Philip Baird Shearer 01:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, there's only one Mount Eden article. Neonumbers 11:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

deletion of historical content

"one mans meat is another mans poison". dunno, but sometimes I wonder where this is all going. ok so delete stuff and that will make it better. But how about move that content to wwhere it is needed? If you put it in a stubb then it will be suggested to be moved to a common article, and thats where it cam from. perhaps put it in the talk page to assemble it for its ultimate destination. thats too hard for some, deletion is real easy. It may be irrelevant to some, but not to others, the usual plan is to talk about it first, or at least give better reasoning, but I am still trying to understand how thats being bold. deletion is kinda bold, but even boldness could come with some sensitivity.moza 13:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

temporary placement of 'irrelevant' content here

• The operator on Mt Eden, and notes to history of radio in NZ.

Typical use of the facilty was for Taxi, Trucks and Vans, and any business needing mobile communications back to their office. The scheme was designed as a work around for the topography and small scale business needs of New Zealand, with the then NZPO (New Zealand Post Office) Radio Depot and Inspectors having complete durisdiction over all radio frequencies, for all purposes.moza 13:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Tea Rooms

Are the Tea Rooms actually at the summit of Mt Eden. I thought they were down a bit. GrahamBould 14:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I've changed it.-gadfium 19:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Close-by suburbs

All the other suburbs seem off. Morningside is west (maybe even southwest) according to Wises.co.nz, not northwest. Similar for Grafton etc... MadMaxDog 11:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Whau Tree pic

No offense, but I think the picture Image:Whautree02.jpg isn't good enough to replace one of the existing pictures. It is already linked to the Entelea arborescens plant article, so it isn't as if it will be unused. MadMaxDog 00:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No offense taken. Kahuroa 09:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw the article in Google Earth, but it was near the "New Zealand Sub-Antarctic Islands", not Auckland. So I guess the coordinates are not quite right?

Kinghcicken2 12:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I just tried it, and while the coordinates are not particularly accurate, being only to the nearest minute, they are in the approximate area of Mt Eden in Auckland. I see no vandalism to the article, so unless there's a second set of coordinates in the article I'm not seeing, I don't know how you got the result in the Antarctic. Are the coordinates you see in the article 36°52′S 174°45′E, and if it still is showing the wrong result, can you explain exactly what you do?-gadfium 18:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

When I click the coordinates in Wikipedia, the right place shows up in Google Earth. But when I am just browsing in Google Earth I see the link to the article with the old wrong coordinates. So I guess it's a caching or update problem of Google Earth. My mistake. --KingChicken 13:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Image Size Looks Too Small

FixBunching seems not work properly. Could I ask why not just use 300px or 250px to fix the width of the image? --Dayten (talk) 01:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Forcing the image size has various bad effects, so it's discouraged unless really necessary. See WP:ImageSize. --Avenue (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

While I am not against your option, it does completely contradict to the purpose of FixBunching model. Dayten (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow you. FixBunching has nothing to do with image size, and it seems to be working as intended here - all the "edit" links are lining up horizontally with the corresponding heading. Are you concerned about the blank space just to the left of the images, under the left side of the infobox? --Avenue (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Second highest or highest natural point?

Early in the article, it says that Mt Eden is the second-highest natural point in the Auckland Region. Later in the article, it says that it is the highest.

Which of these are true? I can't think of any point higher in the immediate vicinity, but of course the "Auckland Region" is quite large. Nzseries1 (talk) 03:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Rangitoto is slightly higher, at 260 metres. Mount Eden is 196 metres above sea level. Kohukohunui (in the Hunua Ranges) is considerably higher, at 668 metres.[1] Both Rangitoto and Kohukohunui are in the Auckland Region. This makes Mount Eden, at best, the third highest peak in the region, and there may be more contenders that I haven't found.

The claim that Mount Eden is the highest point in the isthmus may be correct however, as Rangitoto is not in the isthmus, and Kohukohunui probably isn't depending on how you define the area of the isthmus.-gadfium 08:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The highest point in the Waitakere Ranges is 474 metres, and there may well be other peaks in both the Hunuas and Waitakeres which are above 196. I think we should drop the claim of Mount Eden being the second highest in the region entirely, and leave only the claim of being the highest on the isthmus.-gadfium 08:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, that's what I've done, the claim of being second-highest in the region is confusing at best, and incorrect at worst. Nzseries1 (talk) 03:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Splitting the page in two

I think this page should be split into two pages (for the suburb and the volcano) to bring it into line with other Auckland volcano pages. Haminoon (talk) 00:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll take that response as a hearty "I agree". Haminoon (talk) 08:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)