Talk:Mount Eden - Wikiwand

The content of Eden Garden was merged into Mount Eden on 31 January 2026. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mount Eden article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 3 months

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 Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)

Merge proposal

The result of the discussion was merge as unopposed. (Remember that any editor can perform a merge without discussing it if it's uncontroversial.) FaviFake (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose merging Eden Garden into Mount Eden. I think the content in Eden Garden can easily be explained in the context of this article, and merging them would not cause any article-size or weighting problems. I tried to expand the stub class Eden Garden article, but all sources I could find are covered in the very short article. It potentially fails WP:NOTABILITY as a stand alone article, but in my view would enhance the Mount Eden article Duncnbiscuit (talk) 06:59, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Support there is not much content in this article and merging it wouldn't over burden the article once you remove unnecessary content. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:36, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

list of notable people

I've added the cleanup list template to the notable people section having failed to find reliable sources to show notability of people listed who don't have their own article or at the very least a citation that can verify notability. reading WP:Notability the list should only include those that have their own article. Do we want to be that strict? Duncnbiscuit (talk) 07:51, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

There is no requirement that a list within an article must satisfy WP:NOTABILITY nor have their own article, that is explained by WP:NOTEWORTHY. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:45, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

list of notable buildings

similar to the list of notable people the list of buildings could justify a cleanup list template adding. however, given that we have just merged Eden Garden into this article on the strength that, while notable it would never be more than a Stub, it would be rich to strip the buildings back to just those with their own articles.

what would be good though would be to group the churches and heritage grade buildings into their own subsections and write prose explaining each building's notable character rather that using a bullet list of buildings. Duncnbiscuit (talk) 08:13, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles