Talk:Auckland Transport

Requested move (2010)

The following discussion is an archived discussion 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 proposal was Not done. DMacks (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Auckland Transport Agency → Auckland Transport — This is the name as referred to by the organisation itself. See www.aucklandtransport.govt.nz 91.73.224.185 (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support as per the nomination. Auckland Transport is currently a redirect to Transport in Auckland, which isn't right. Schwede66 03:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting... but what do Aucklanders call it? That's the usage we should follow. Official names aren't always the common names. Andrewa (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• I suspect most Aucklanders wouldn't even be aware of the organisation yet, let alone have a nickname for it. If I had to refer to it in conversation, I would probably just say "the new regional transport agency" or something similar. Support move per nom, without prejudice to a new title if some variant becomes established local usage. --Avenue (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not a question of a nickname. It's more looking beyond just the official name, an in this case it's important. See below. And there's more than a slight smell of politics in the choice of the name on the government website! Andrewa (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, if there was another name it was known by, we would need to consider that as well as the official name. But my point was that there isn't. And I'm curious - what political bias do you think might be behind the official name? --Avenue (talk) 10:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose on grounds of WP:PRECISION, and following discussion above about whether a common name exists. This article is about the new Agency, as distinct from the now-replaced Auckland Regional Transport Authority, but the proposed title completely fails to distinguish the two. Perhaps Auckland Transport should become a two-way DAB? Merging the two articles is another option; I don't think that restructuring to have three articles is justified, but that's a third valid option. Andrewa (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, Auckland Transport could become a three-way DAB by including Transport in Auckland, which is an even better option, but doesn't need to go to RM, so no change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • No - the capitalisation of Auckland Transport shows it is a proper noun, so confusion with the general topic of "transport in Auckland" seems highly unlikely. And as far as I know, ARTA never went by the name of Auckland Transport, so I don't see why a two-way dab between the two agencies would be appropriate either. --Avenue (talk) 10:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Agree about the capitalisation, I don't think it would confuse anyone to include the third article in a See also section of the (capitalised) DAB, but I'm not too fussed either way. Whether they ever went by the name of Auckland Transport is irrelevant, the only question is, will people look for the article under this name? If so, we need some sort of navigation device there, and a DAB seems the obvious answer. Andrewa (talk) 11:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
        • I think it's unlikely that anyone wanting information on ARTA would expect to find it under the name "Auckland Transport". To be honest, I can't even see any real justification for a dabnote at the top of the page, because to me the title seems very unlikely to direct readers to the wrong article. Links within the text to Auckland Regional Transport Authority and transport in Auckland seem more appropriate. --Avenue (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Move this page to Auckland Transport (2011)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page moved. Consensus to move on the basis of the common name. Andrewa (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Auckland Transport Agency → Auckland Transport — Request from Auckland Transport below. gadfium 00:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC) I represent Auckland Transport and have made edits to add recent appointments and clarify facts according to our corporate position. The official name of the organisation is Auckland Transport and the Executive requests that the Title of the page be changed to reflect that. The term Auckland Transport agency may have been relevant during transition from the defunct organsation ARTA (Auckland Regional Transport Authority) but it does not exist as an entity. London Transport and Brisbane Transport are recognised as brands by Wikipedia, and we request the same status - if necessary "Auckland Transport (brand)" which is consistent with London Transport. Sphenodon (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• support, as it's the name of the agency and as far as I can see, it's commonly known by that name now. I'm just wondering why this is not a multi-move request, as Auckland Transport is a dab page, and it should logically be moved to Auckland Transport (disambiguation). Schwede66 00:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Short answer: I didn't think of it. Longer answer: A hatnote can cover those people looking for Transport in Auckland. The blog referred to in that page does not have an article (although it's a valuable blog).-gadfium 04:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

So why don't we just move the dab page? That way, we keep the redlink to the blog. That move should be uncontroversial enough. Schwede66 20:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Avenue (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support move. This should have happened earlier, but the closer for the earlier move request ignoredmisinterpreted the 3:1 consensus expressed then for moving (counting the nominator). --Avenue (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• From Proposer: The practical consensus here is appreciated. Excuse my unfamiliarity with protocol, technology and terminology. I think I read proposal that the Page Title be changed to Auckland Transport and that then be listed on a "dab" page Auckland Transport (disambigulation) which will include "Auckland Transport","Transport in Auckland" and "Auckland Transport Blog". That would be a satisfactory solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphenodon (talk • contribs) 00:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, that's pretty much my reading of the current proposal/consensus too. A hatnote at the top of this article linking to Transport in Auckland has also been suggested. I don't see any real necessity for that, but don't greatly object either. --Avenue (talk) 10:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Officialspeak

The article reads in parts like a political press release, or perhaps the executive summary of a public service report. I've made a start [1] at an encyclopedic tone but more is needed. Andrewa (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Good stuff. Andrewa (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Disclosure

I'd like to voluntarily disclose that I am currently employed by AT. This means I have a potential Conflict of Interest, however the updated logo I've added is publicly available on AT's website here as well as AT's social media channels. Any information I add to the article will be written strictly from reliable sources cited. E James Bowman (talk) 04:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, E James Bowman. It’s probably cleaner if you don’t edit the article other than minor edits. Just list it here if something needs amending. Schwede66 18:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Schwede66, will do. E James Bowman (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Schwede66, as shown in the 2023 AT Brand Identity Guidelines here, the AT Metro brand is being phased-out on all Auckland public transport and is being replaced with the single-colour AT logo. This can be seen on the new AT-owned ferries here, and new AT electric buses here and here. This new branding is being phased-in as ferries, buses and trains are upgraded (like the ferries) or replaced (like the new electric buses replacing the diesel fleet). I think it would be good to replace the AT Metro logo on the Public transport in Auckland article with the AT logo used on the Auckland Transport article, and add the bus and ferry photos showing the new branding. This could also be explained in the AT Metro article (which should retain the AT Metro logo).

I think the electrification of AT's fleets could be expanded and updated in the Public transport in Auckland article. All of AT's trains are now 100% electric, 138 of AT's buses are electric, and Auckland's first two electric ferries are due to be launched by AT later this year. Here are some other sources for trains, buses and ferries.

Once the new HOP card designs (shown in the AT Brand Identity Guidelines) are released in couple of months time, I'll share a photo of one here to add to the AT HOP card article.

With concensus, I'm happy to edit the articles, but understand if you think it's wiser to leave that to other editors. E James Bowman (talk) 05:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Why don’t you put some suggested text plus refs on this talk page and let other editors to transfer it to the article? Schwede66 07:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. That proved to be incredibly complicated, so I've incorporated the above into the Public transport in Auckland and AT Metro articles referring to this Talk, as well as some info on contactless payments in the former and the AT HOP card article. E James Bowman (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)