Talk:Brisbane/Archive 6

Update of Brisbane Montage

Brisbane Queensland
Skyline from Kangaroo Point; Story Bridge, CityCat ferries; Queenslander architecture, Brisbane City Hall

Does anyone think it would look better with these two images added, Story Bridge with Howard Smith Wharves, and a daytime image of Brisbane City Hall. The current montage is nice, but both are hard to make out which is odd because City Hall is easily Brisbane's best landmark so it should be easily seen.--Caltraser55 (talk) 01:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the daylight city hall image is better than what we currently have and should be changed however I think the existing night time Storey Bridge image lit up is more striking and shows the whole of the bridge - also it's probably good that we have one night time image and the neon style lighting is a trademark of how the BCC light up a lot of landmarks in the city.--StormcrowMithrandir 22:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Mithrandir, I agree with you that a night time image of the Story Bridge is far better, but trying to find a good image on wikimedia seems impossible. But yes, the Brisbane City Hall is to Brisbane what Flinders Street Station is to Melbourne, so I think we need an image where you can more clearly see it. If you have any suggestions let me know.--Caltraser55 (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the existing night image of the Storey Bridge which shows the full span is probably fine until a better one can be found. At some point I will also try and find/take a skyline shot which shows more of the skyline.--StormcrowMithrandir 02:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Caltraser55: What do you think of the montage on the page now? As part of about six hours straight worth of adding updated content to the article and removing various obscure/outdated (usually to the mid 2000s) references and quasi-advertising for pet businesses/events, etc, I have been going through the Wikimedia Commons looking for images. The skyline shot is now a daytime shot which shows the full massive extent of the Skyline from 1 William in the South over to Soleil in the north which I think is important as it shows the scale of the skyline which is extreme in world terms for a city of 2.5 million (in Europe and North America cities many times the size do not have anywhere near the number of 100m+ and 150m+ buildings or scale of skyline). All the tallest buildings are visible including 1 William , Skytower, Infinity, Soleil, Riparian, Aurora, 111 Eagle. It also shows the extent and width of the river. I have also found one of the Story Bridge which I am not too fussed on and while still a night image is much clearer than the previous one and also shows the distinctive lighting. Finally, I have found a citycat image (they are pretty much all the same as each other) although this one has the Botanic Gardens behind it so you get two landmarks into one (also a bit more photogenic than the nondescript bit of land behind the previous image).--StormcrowMithrandir 01:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mithrandir, personally I prefer the Eagle Street picture for the skyline I had as the current skyline from Kangaroo Point looks "not ready yet", maybe in another decade it will fill in enough and will look amazing, but I am happy with it enough to keep it. The rest is great, I only have a problem with the small white space between the city cat and the Queenslander image as the City cats a larger size. My second problem lies with some of the info opening paragraphs, I may edit and work over them again, things such as the climate I don't think are necessary for the opening.--Caltraser55 (talk) 07:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@Caltraser55:; @StormcrowMithrandir:In case you are interested, there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Relisted_proposal:_Allow_wikilinks_and_other_wikimarkup_from_Template:!_tooltip_text_in_photomotages_to_be_displayed_on_Media_Viewer.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of City of Brisbane into Brisbane

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This discussion to merge City of Brisbane into Brisbane was resolved in the negative unanimously following clarification on the difference. ItsPugle (talk) 00:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

---

The City of Brisbane and Brisbane are pretty much indistinguishable from each other in reality and can be better represented with a single section in an article about the governmental structure (in terms of wards and electorates). Please leave your thoughts on this over here. ItsPugle (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

They are very, very different concepts and should in no way be merged. Nor are they merged for any other Australian capital city. This has also been discussed previously. The Brisbane article is about the metropolitan area of Brisbane as defined by the ABS, as with all Australian capital cities. It includes multiple local government areas. The City of Brisbane is just one of these local government areas. There is also the Moreton Bay Region, the City of Logan, the City of Ipswich, the Redlands City and part of the Scenic Rim Region which are all included in the Brisbane metropolitan area (and the subject matter of the Brisbane article). The City of Brisbane is just the largest of these local government areas, but it accounts for less than half of the population and area of Brisbane.

This is the same with Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and all other Australian capital city articles. The City of Sydney for example has a few hundred thousand people and accounts for some of the inner and eastern suburbs of Sydney. The City of Melbourne also has a few hundred thousand and includes some of the inner suburbs. There are separate articles for Sydney, Melbourne (which refer to the entire metro area) and City of Sydney/City of Melbourne (the inner LGA only). There is no justification at all for merging the innermost council areas with the articles for any of these cities at large. For Australian city articles, we always keep the concept of LGAs (local government areas) separate for this reason as their boundaries are arbitrary and all Australian metro areas include multiple parts of multiple LGAs. If you take a look for instance at City of Sydney, there is not (and should not be) separate articles for the Sydney City Council (which is just the name of the governing statutory corporation which governs the City of Sydney LGA) and 'City of Sydney'. Where there are separate articles is for 'Sydney' (as a whole, whose area includes the City of Sydney LGA and many, many other LGAs), and 'City of Sydney' (about the central LGA only which includes a section on that area's governing statutory corporation, namely the Sydney City Council).

You will see that I have now added an explanatory note at the head of the article in the same form as the one at the head of the Melbourne article and the Sydney article to explain that this article refers to the Brisbane metropolitan area, that City of Brisbane refers to the local government area which covers many of its inner suburbs, and that Brisbane central business district refers to the CBD. This should make this very clear to readers. StormcrowMithrandir 06:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. City of Brisbane and Brisbane are different things. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 21:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's simply not true to say they "are pretty much indistinguishable from each other in reality" They are very different things. HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 22 May 2020 (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.

Division of Brisbane

Hello. It is widely known that Brisbane is divided into 5 local government areas (LGAs): City of Brisbane, City of Ipswich, Logan City, Moreton Bay Region, Redland City. But in Brisbane#Governance shows additionally Scenic Rim Region. I have a question: are there official sources that accurately describe the boundaries of Brisbane? Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 01:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

If you take a look on the Australian Bureau of Statistics each of the capital cities has a 'Greater Capital City Statistical Area' under their Australian Standard Geographical Classification which define statistial areas and which are used for all statistics. There are maps available of these areas. Only part of scenic rim is included I believe whereas I think part falls into Gold Coast statistical area and others.--StormcrowMithrandir 05:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

---

Please see, (data from articles):

Local government area	Population (2018)	Area
City of Brisbane	1 231 605	1,343 km²
Moreton Bay Region	459 585	2,042 km²
Logan City	326 615	958 km²
City of Ipswich	213 638	1,094 km²
Redland City	156 863	537 km²
Total	2 388 303	5,974 km²

The population is accepted (2.4 million in 2018) but area is totally unacceptable for official figures. See Greater Brisbane, area is 15,842 km², not 5,974 km². This data needs to be verified, a threefold difference is too much.

References

Even with whole Scenic Rim Region is total: 10,217 km², and + whole Somerset Region is total: 15,590 km² (see map), or with whole Scenic Rim Region (total 10,217 km²), and + whole City of Gold Coast+Sunshine Coast Region is total: 13,805 km² (see map), this is less than official data for Greater Brisbane (15,842 km²).

I finded two official maps (from "gov" pages): [1] [2], unfortunately no LGAs markered. It looks like Greate Brisbane also includes (propably whole) Scenic Rim Region and Somerset Region + half of Lockyer Valley Region (see the range and shape of the maps). So, this is probably what Greater Brisbane looks like in numbers (per official maps):

Local government area	Population (2018)	Area
City of Brisbane	1 231 605	1,343 km²
Moreton Bay Region	459 585	2,042 km²
Logan City	326 615	958 km²
City of Ipswich	213 638	1,094 km²
Redland City	156 863	537 km²
Scenic Rim Region	42 583	4,243 km²
Somerset Region	25 887	5,373 km²
part of Lockyer Valley Region	part of 41,011	part of 2,269 km²
Total per maps	2 456 773+	15,590 km²+
Total per official numbers	2 462 637	15,842 km²

One of the "gov" sources show Greater Brisbane on map in the same shape than previous "gov" sources, but shows only 5 administrative units (LGA from my first wikitable: City of Brisbane, Moreton Bay Region, Logan City, City of Ipswich, Redland City) in the text [3]. This is absurd. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 21:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The three maps you have found for the GCCSA area are correct at https://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/factsheetsgeography/$file/Greater%20Capital%20City%20Statistical%20Area%20-%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf ; https://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/communityprofile/3GBRI?opendocument ; https://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/research-topics/aboutmyregion/greater-brisbane#regional-overview

The later map you linked to reflects the old Statistical Division area which were the old ABS geographical classification for capital cities before they were replaced with Greater Capital City Statistical Areas about 10 years ago. Having overlaid the GCCSA map with a map of current QLD LGAs you are correct that the GCCSA also substantially includes Scenic Rim, Somerset and Lockyer Valley. This was already reflected in the list of LGAs in the infobox (a lot of the other Aus city articles are lazy and just say 'various' or '25 LGAs') however I have noted that Lockyer Valley is only partial. The population for the GCCSA is 2.5 million, only very very marginally larger than the old Statistical Division (about 60,000 or so larger) despite being much larger geographically because the outlying areas are extremely sparsely populated.StormcrowMithrandir 02:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that source of Australian Bureau of Statistics - Greater Capital City Statistical Areas show two statistical units on map:

• Capital City Statistical Division (five LGAs: City of Brisbane, Moreton Bay Region, Logan City, City of Ipswich, Redland City) - see gray color and map description
• Greater Capital City Statistical Area (five LGAs - as above + Scenic Rim Region + Somerset Region + part of Lockyer Valley Region) - see orange-green line and map description

Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 22:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I think this table is good for the article:

Local government area	Population (2018)	Area	Density	Capital City Statistical Division	Greater Capital City Statistical Area
City of Brisbane	1 231 605	1343 km²	917 /km²
Moreton Bay Region	459 585	2042 km²	225 /km²
Logan City	326 615	958 km²	341 /km²
City of Ipswich	213 638	1094 km²	195 /km²
Redland City	156 863	537 km²	292 /km²
Scenic Rim Region	42 583	4243 km²	10 /km²
Somerset Region	25 887	5373 km²	5 /km²
Lockyer Valley Region (part)	5 864	252 km²	18 /km²

OR

Local government area	Population (2018)	Area	Density	Capital City Statistical Division	Greater Capital City Statistical Area
City of Brisbane	1 231 605	1343 km²	917 /km²
Moreton Bay Region	459 585	2042 km²	225 /km²
Logan City	326 615	958 km²	341 /km²
City of Ipswich	213 638	1094 km²	195 /km²
Redland City	156 863	537 km²	292 /km²
Total	2 388 303	5974 km²	400 /km²
Scenic Rim Region	42 583	4243 km²	10 /km²
Somerset Region	25 887	5373 km²	5 /km²
Lockyer Valley Region (part)	5 864	252 km²	18 /km²
Total	2 462 637	15 842 km²	156 /km²

OR

Local government area	Population (2018)	Area	Density	Capital City Statistical Division	Greater Capital City Statistical Area (Greater Brisbane)
City of Brisbane	1,231,605	1,343 km²	917 /km²
Moreton Bay Region	459,585	2,042 km²	225 /km²
Logan City	326,615	958 km²	341 /km²
City of Ipswich	213,638	1,094 km²	195 /km²
Redland City	156,863	537 km²	292 /km²
Total	2,388,303	5,974 km²	400 /km²
Scenic Rim Region	42,583	4,243 km²	10 /km²
Somerset Region	25,887	5,373 km²	5 /km²
Lockyer Valley Region (part)	5,864	252 km²	18 /km²
Total	2,462,637	15,842 km²	156 /km²

OR

Local government area	Population (2018)	Area	Density	Capital City Statistical Division	Greater Capital City Statistical Area (Greater Brisbane)
City of Brisbane	1,231,605	1,343 km²	917 /km²
Moreton Bay Region	459,585	2,042 km²	225 /km²
Logan City	326,615	958 km²	341 /km²
City of Ipswich	213,638	1,094 km²	195 /km²
Redland City	156,863	537 km²	292 /km²
Total	2,388,303	5,974 km²	400 /km²
Scenic Rim Region	42,583	4,243 km²	10 /km²
Somerset Region	25,887	5,373 km²	5 /km²
Lockyer Valley Region (part)	5,864	252 km²	18 /km²
Total	2,462,637	15,842 km²	156 /km²			Map of Greater Brisbane (except Sunshine Coast i Gold Coast)

References

Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 23:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Of those two units, one is superceded and redundant. The Statistical Divisions were replaced with the Greater Capital City Statistical Areas by the ABS about ten years ago. Prior to that, all their statistics/census data for capital cities used Capital City Statistical Divisions (there are no statistics published by the ABS for these since then). 10 years ago they implemented the new Australian Standard Geographical Classification which created new forms of statistical areas which replaced all the old ones - that includes the new Greater Capital City Statistical Areas which have been used by the ABS in all their statistics and census data, etc since that time, directly replacing the old Statistical Divisions. The reason the linked maps show the old Statistical Divisions is to compare then with the new GCCSAs which were being implemented at that time to familiarise people with the changes. Given that they were abolished the Statistical Divisions have no statistical use since 2010/11 when the new geographical classification replaced them. The article does give a full list of those LGAs which make up the GCCSA (unlike most of the other Aus capital city articles which just say eg '24 LGAs', and noting that Lockyer Valley is only partial. The map you have there is actually a map of South East Queensland, not the Brisbane GCCSA, as that map includes the Sunshine and Gold Coasts as well as most of the Lockyer Valley. It is definitely appropriate for the SEQ article. --StormcrowMithrandir 23:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

If this is true, why are there no new sources describing LGAs in Greater Brisbane? There is one official source who describes Greater Brisbane as the 5x LGA, why not 8? There is not sources for new Greater Brisbane (8x LGA), despite the fact that almost 10 years have passed since the change. What's going on here? Sources are needed for a new division (for 8 LGAs)! I only found the maps. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 23:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

That is because the boundaries of the Greater Capital City Statistical Areas as defined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics do not concur with LGA boundaries. They are not governmental areas - they are statistical areas for the publication of statistics and their boundaries do not concur with LGA boundaries so there is not a specific list of LGAs that it overlaps with as they are very separate and distinct concepts with no relation to each other - one is local government areas for provision of rubbish, local roads, etc defined by the state government - the other is defined by the federal government for collection and publication of statistics and the boundaries are based on urban sprawl/commuting patterns/labour markets. There are maps of the GCCSAs but they have no reason to refer to LGAs. In fact, in this article, we do note roughly what the LGAs/partial LGAs included in the GCCSA are, which is more than is done on the other Australian capital city articles like Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, etc - they just say 'covers approximately 23 LGAs' etc - LGAs being a political/local government unit with arbitary boundaries rather than an organic metropolitan area so their use is very limited in describing metro areas. Also the source you noted is a particular QLD govt agency not the ABS - the ABS defines statistical areas for metro areas, etc in Australia--StormcrowMithrandir 07:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The ABS draws lines on the map to suit its purposes. That's not the basis of notability of places in Wikipedia. Brisbane is a gazetted "population centre" (previously called city/town) [4] (so satisfies Wikipedia notability rules). That's the subject of this article, the urban extent from flows from the centre as identified in the gazettal (whose coords are the Brisbane GPO). On that definition Brisbane is a continuously expanding urban area but it does not yet extend to encompass the Scenic Rim or Somerset Region but certainly does extend to Moreton Bay Region, City of Logan, City of Ipswich, and City of Redland. It pretty soon will probably extend to the Gold Coast (the developments around Coomera are almost bridging the existing gap) at which point its urban extent will be into the Tweed area in northern NSW. This presents great difficulties for everyone as traditionally distinct places become one vast metropolis. At the 2016 census this is what the ABS considered the urban area of Brisbane. So if we use something from the ABS for this article, it should be the "UCL" (urban centre) map and data. OrKerry (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

It is worth looking at the definitions of the various ABS area, e.g. Urban Centre, Significant Urban Centre, which can aggregrate a number of pre-urban UCLs with gaps of 5km etc. So UCLs are more-or-less wthe current urgan boundary, while SUAs are sort-of estimating where those boundaries are likely to be heading towards in the future). Kerry (talk) 23:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Lead

Caltraser5 reverted my edit rather than discuss it here, and then rudely attacked me on my talk page. The reason that Meanjin was in the lead and bold, was because it has a redirect from the Meanjin page, which happens to be a journal, but otherwise would be a simple redirect. There is a growing movement and wish for acknowledging Indigenous names of places in Australia (highlighted by NAIDOC week right now), and our readers would expect to find this in the lead, in a way that expresses what it is and where it comes from. Important facts from the body need to be included in the lead. I'm sure that the lead could do with further improvement per WP:LEAD and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, but the use of reversion and labelling good faith edits vandalism is not how we edit on Wikipedia. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

"Important facts from the body need to be included in the lead." - It's already in the lead, what you did was shuffle around the intro.--Caltraser5 (talk) 10:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I apologise for my earlier comments, your edit was not vandalism, but it frustrated me. I'm sorry.--Caltraser5 (talk) 11:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Caltraser5, okay, apology accepted, we are all human. I will remove the section from my talk page. However, if you find yourself so frustrated by a change in an article you have edited, you should probably read and reflect on WP:OWN from time to time (we all could!).

With regard to the positioning of the alternative name, according to WP:OTHERNAMES, alternative names "should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph", and MOS:BOLDREDIRECT says alternative names should be bolded. (Italics have trickier rules and I don't think apply here.) I'm about to make a small addition in parenthesis about the pronunciation of the word, but will leave it where it is for now. This doesn't mean that any other editor, including you, should be inhibited from moving it into the first paragraph in the future. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Understood, thankyou. --Caltraser5 (talk) 10:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Excerpt on 20th c. Civil Liberties Movement

I was unsure whether something relating to the civil liberties movement and struggle for freedom of speech, should be included in the Intro:History section. I wrote a sentence for it, but I'd rather have input on this one. In the late 20th century, Brisbane became a battleground in the struggle for civil liberties and freedom of speech, against the authoritarianism of the Bjelke-Petersen government. --Caltraser5 (talk) 00:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Hey @Caltraser5. I think there is something here based on the SLQ article, but I don't think describing protests in Brisbane as a "battleground" or describing the Bjelke-Petersen government as authoritarian is exactly consistent with Wikipedia:NPOV. Sure, there were definitely contentious parts of their policies, but I think a lot of the protests that occurred were part of a more general shift in Brisbane to a more labour-and-liberty focused political environment, not just a specific rebellion against the government of the day. Anyways, I couldn't really find anything in the SQL article that supports such politicised wording. ItsPugle (talk) 09:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

References

What is Gentlest architecture that Brisbane is so well known for?

In the lede section of the Brisbane article, it says "Brisbane is known for its Gentlest and distinct Queenslander architecture ..." with a citation that doesn't mention any architectural styles. Now, I don't imagine it would be difficult to find citations about Brisbane being known for its Queenslander architecture, but what on earth is "gentlest architecture" for which Brisbane is so known that it would be listed ahead of the Queenslander? Well, Google doesn't seem to know much about "gentle architecture" beyond the Wikipedia article Gentlest architecture, which appears to have coined the term as meaning "gentle brutalism", since none of the citations use the term "gentle architecture" not even the source [2] cited. So what are the citations behind this Gentlest architecture (linked to current version).

• [1] uses the term "gentle brutalism" as a quote from architects Richards & Spence
• [2] uses the term "gentle brutalism" appears in an interview with Richards
• [3] uses the term "gentle brutalism" in a quote by Richards
• [4] doesn't use the term "gentle brutalism" but "brutalism" is mentioned once in the reflections of Richards & Spence
• [5] doesn't use the term "gentle brutalism" nor "brutalism" but is a video tour of Richards & Spence's own home
• [6] doesn't use the term "gentle brutalism" nor "brutalism" but describes the Fish Lane project by Richards & Spence

The article lists 5 notable examples of "gentlest architecture", all of which are by Richards & Spence (see a list of their projects)

I propose we remove Gentlest architecture from the lede of the Brisbane article. Any objections? Kerry (talk) 09:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I coined the term after Richards & Spence defined their architectural style as "Gentle Brutalism", which is purported to stand in stark contrast to the tenets of Brutalism. Gentlest is the adjective of Gentle in the same way Brutalist is to Brutal. It's not that I put it ahead of Queenslander architecture with the intent of lessening its importance, only that I struggled to find anywhere else in the section to put it in nicely. --Caltraser5 (talk) 11:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

In that case the article is an obvious candidate for speedy deletion. Brisbane can't be known for "gentlest architecture" if you literally had to coin the term, and a search of "gentle brutalism" shows that it has been in use for decades around the world, so it is not the unique Brisbane style as you portray it to be. 1.145.169.144 (talk) 07:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I would agree that "Gentlest" architecture should not be in the lede without sources confirming the statement that Brisbane is "known for" that style. I'd also agree with the IP comments about the main article and creating neologisms - it doesn't seem like there's really enough to justify a separate article and I'd be wary of using architecture websites as sources, as there is plenty of pay-to-play in design news. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 09:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually "gentle brutalism" is a new term by Richards & Spence, you won't find anything else like it either in Brutalism or any other terms. It is likely the IP comment is a sockpuppet of Hilo after his recent outbursts.--Caltraser5 (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Might I propose a moderate solution to the above impasse. Perhaps include Queenslander in the lede as it is unquestionably highly renowned across Australia and unquestionably is justified in the ledge which is a concise summary of the most fundamental aspects of the article subject. Include a reference to Gentle Brutalism under the Architecture subheading in the main text as this allows for more detailed content.StormcrowMithrandir 11:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, in relation to the current edit war surrounding 'rich cultural heritage', one solution could be phrasing along the lines of 'Brisbane's distinct cultural heritage is exemplified in its Queenslander architecture, etc, etc'.StormcrowMithrandir 23:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

"Brisbane is noted for its rich culture and history", is not an overstatement. Brisbane's culture includes Queenslander architecture, Jacaranda blossoms, city cats, its cuisine and so on, name me another city in Australia that has an identifiable culture as Brisbane does, even by world standards Brisbane stands out. As for history, considering Brisbane was to the Pacific what London was to the European theatre during WW2, Brisbane has a very notable history in that regard, being the most important city of the Pacific war following the fall of Singapore. That's not to mention Brisbane's early history of socialism, an ideology that continues to be world influencing--Caltraser5 (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC).

I agree, but I also think that 'showing is better than telling' in writing so alluding to these things in itself demonstrates a strong cultural/historical heritage so whether explicitly saying 'Brisbane is note for its rich cultural heritage' may not necessarily be necessary.StormcrowMithrandir 01:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

"Brisbane" is mentioned only once on the Pacific War page, in relation to US submarine presence. Fremantle is more notable in that regard.1.152.110.129 (talk) 11:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that the Pacific War article is somewhat deficient in that regard. It says MacArthur who was Supreme Allied Commander withdrew to Melbourne and in the absence of anything to the contrary, the reader might be excused for thinking he commanded the Allies from Melbourne, but in fact a couple of months later, he relocated the HQ of the Allied Command to Brisbane, resulting in pretty much every large public and private building commandeered to accommodate the vast number of departments and staff required to coordinate the Allies in the Pacific. The main military operation staging point was Townsville. The reason for Qld's role in all this was purely geographic. It was closest to the war zone. Brisbane was chosen for the HQ because nowhere further north was deemed to have the infrastructure needed for the scale of the HQ operation (communications being a particular requirement). I'm not seeking to dismiss the role of any other Australian place in the war effort but Brisbane was MacArthur's HQ. My school, my university, my family's church, etc were all commandeered, bomb shelters were erected everywhere, the Brisbane River was used to separate the US white and black US troops for recreation (whites to the North, blacks to the South). If you go to many places in Qld, they often have a WW2 story. I was updating the Maxwelton, Queensland article the other day, thinking to myself "I guess nothing much happened here", only to discover it was where we stockpiled the chemical warfare weapons in WW2 (tens of thousands of bombs filled with gas) and how we later disposed of them by the Dont-try-this-at-home technique of standing upwind of them and then shooting a bullet into each bomb to release the gas. So yeah we probably need to add some mention of Brisbane's role in the Pacific War article. If anyone is looking for source material on Queensland's involvement in WW2, this Qld Govt website is a good place to get info on particular places and their role in WW2.Kerry (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The wartime experience also left its mark on Brisbane's social and folkloric history - see, eg, the Battle of Brisbane or the Brisbane Line StormcrowMithrandir 10:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Uncooperative, confrontational editor who wants to make Brisbane appear to be the largest city in Australia.

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.

---

Rather than describe a sequence of events, I simply ask editors to look at the recent history of edits and Edit summaries, where User @Caltraser5: has altered wording to make it appear that Brisbane is Australia's largest city. He did moderate his approach by eventually saying it's the largest city proper. In my eyes, that's of little help. Most readers won't know what that means. The disagreement is bad enough, but I see this editor's refusal to come here to the Talk page, and just bulldozing on, as the bigger sin. Looking for some input from editors more interested in making Wikipedia a great encyclopaedia than in proving Brisbane is a great city. HiLo48 (talk) 05:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey Hilo, I reverted the previous edit, the lgas thing confused me. I did not "moderate" my approach, you asked me to clarify when you first reverted. So I put "city proper" - aka clarifying. I have been more than cooperative, you accusing me of being "confrontational" is laughable at best considering you accused me on the go of being "deliberately deceptive" ignoring Wikipedia:Assume good faith, then accusing me of "refusal to come here to the Talk page" before I've had a chance to respond. "bigger sin" - Grow up, learn not to be so ego-centered.--Caltraser5 (talk) 06:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Simple question. Why, after I asked you to discuss your changes here, did you simply keep editing the article and NOT come here until I began this conversation? A good answer to that might convince me you weren't being confrontational and showing bad faith. It will need to be a bloody good answer. HiLo48 (talk) 06:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Because you were reverting facts, Brisbane is the most populous city proper, you reverted that. For no good reason. I'll turn the question on you, why after I also asked you to discuss on the talk page did you revert my edit, what was the reason? And then why do you attempt to gaslight by claiming you showed good faith, when you accused me off the bat of malicious intent?--Caltraser5 (talk) 07:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous discussion. You are lying about what I did and said, AND what YOU did and said.. As I wrote above, I shall await some input from editors more interested in making Wikipedia a great encyclopaedia than in proving Brisbane is a great city. HiLo48 (talk) 09:54, 1 January 2022 (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.

I would suggest that the lede already says that the Brisbane metro area includes the City of Brisbane LGA which is the most populous LGA in Australia which is more than sufficient. I strongly oppose referring to Brisbane as being the largest city in Australia. Clearly, it is not 5 times larger than Sydney (which it would be on the basis of LGAs - indeed the Sunshine Coast would be a larger city than Sydney on that basis!) and to imply this is not at all useful. The practice with Australian city articles is to focus on metropolitan areas, not LGAs, which is a very good thing. LGAs are arbitrary lines on a map that have no bearing on the organic form and extent of a city, which is an organic entity. All Australian cities are made up of numerous LGAs. They are not a useful concept for referencing the size of a city. The US has some quite preposterous and misleading outcomes as a result of their common practice of focusing on LGA population - there is more of a reason for it there however (although still unjustified) as LGAs in the US have far more relevance than in Australia given that many entities which fall under the state government here (such as police forces and courts) fall under municipal government in the US.StormcrowMithrandir 00:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for those thoughts. I would agree with that approach, so long as we make it clear what an LGA is, and not just with a link. It's not a common term among the general population worldwide. HiLo48 (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I would propose leaving as is which is a long-established wording on this page which refers to the metro area comprising several LGAs of which one is the most populous in the nation. This does not imply in any way that Brisbane is the largest city in Australia. Indeed, prior to any reference to LGAs it refers to Brisbane being 3rd in the nation. I think this is a sensible and logical approach which has stood the test of many years on this page.StormcrowMithrandir 11:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

To clarify my position, there must be no chance we could mislead anyone into thinking that Brisbane is the city in Australia with the largest population. And when I say city, I DON'T mean LGA, I mean the common usage of the term as a metropolitan area. Right now I believe the wording could mislead. Why do that? HiLo48 (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The current wording is: Brisbane is the capital and most populous city of the Australian state of Queensland,[11] and the third-most populous city in Australia. Brisbane's metropolitan area has a population of around 2.6 million,[12] and it lies at the centre of the South East Queensland metropolitan region, which encompasses a population of around 3.8 million. [Insert two sentences on geography] ... It sprawls across several of Australia's most populous local government areas (LGAs) — most centrally the City of Brisbane, the most populous LGA in the nation. I can't see anything misleading in there even by emphasis or omission.StormcrowMithrandir 00:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes but technically speaking Brisbane is the largest city according to LGAs, which is also what the US focuses on. LA has a population of about 3.5 million but if you include its metropolitan urban area its something like 19 million people. Whereas apparently we do the opposite, and focus on metropolitan areas and ignore the actual city which doesn't make sense to me.--Caltraser5 (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

This is why I think the current established wording is appropriate as it merely states facts. It also does not put undue emphasis on the LGA because, thankfully, in Australia this is not how we measure the population/ranked size of cities. The ABS and the population at large use Greater Capital City Statistical Areas (metropolitian areas) for this purpose and always have done as it is the most useful measure. Nobody in Australia would ever say that the Gold Coast is bigger than Sydney or the Sunshine Coast is bigger than Melbourne for this reason. I believe that the long-established is appropriate, does not mislead and is clearly understood.StormcrowMithrandir 01:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

My initial comment in an Edit summary about this whole issue is that talking bout populations of LGAs is simply misleading. I still believe that. HiLo48 (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually LGAs are very relevant. They have precise boundaries recognised in the real world (eg rates notices, dog registration etc). A person's residence is in one and one only LGA. Mostly LGA boundaries remain unchanged for many years so we talk about comparisons and trends over time wrt to LGAs in a fairly meaningful way. ABS's statistical areas do not have this property, they are not "real world" boundaries and can change quite frequently. They are the choice of statisticians to assist them in their work. People seem to like to use them in Wikipedia because the larger ones have larger populations and some people seem obsessed with "mine is bigger than yours". If you are trying to measure the "metropolis of Brisbane", I think the UCL is the statistical measure to use, as it reflects the distinction between "urban" and "rural". And this is quite important as many of the LGAs around Brisbane have both urban and rural areas. If we want to talk about the population of Brisbane as a metropolis, then Bundamba should be counted but not Mount Mort, despite both being in the City of Ipswich. The larger statistical areas for Brisbane include the entire Scenic Rim Region which is almost entirely rural or undeveloped, with the exception perhaps of Beaudesert which will soon be an extension of the Logan City urban sprawl. Indeed, even Brisbane LGS remains partially rural in the west, e.g. Lake Manchester, Banks Creek, England Creek, and it would be hard to describe Moreton Island (also part of city of Brisbane) as "urban". I'd recommend we use UCLs for these kind of comparisons of "cities". Kerry (talk) 15:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree, and have been trying to make precisely this point since the beginning of the discussion, including the locked up bit above. (Although I wasn't familiar with the formal term UCL. Thank you for helping grow my vocabulary.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

If anyone wants to know more about UCLs, this is a good place to start and the design subpage explains how they construct the boundaries of the UCL, but in simple terms it aggregates small areas (mesh blocks) of high population density or contains infrastructure associated with high density populations (schools, parks, water reservoirs, freeways) that are geographically adjacent. It specifically excludes areas used for rural purposes but might include a bushland area if it is fully surrounded by urban areas (so e.g the reserve at Mount Gravatt is included as part of the Brisbane UCL even though it has no/low population or infrastructure). The map that results is a pretty realistic depiction of an urban area. Kerry (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

City and Metropolitan area

Stormcrow, by statistical definition cities in Australia are ranked by METROPOLITAN AREAS, therefore it should say "third most populous metropolitan area".

How are people so thick in the head they can't understand??

The article SAYS:

Brisbane Third most populous CITY - The CITY OF BRISBANE is 1,2 million people (that is not third that is first)

It should say

Brisbane Third most populous metropolitan area - referencing the 2,6 million people that cities in Australia are ranked by

Likewise the City of Melbourne is tiny, Melbourne is not the 2nd most populous CITY in Australia, the CITY OF MELBOURNE is tiny, it should read as "Melbourne 2nd most populous metropolitan area"--Caltraser5 (talk) 03:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

You cannot have your cake and eat it too, you want to rank cities by their metropolitan populations but then label them the statistical definition of a "city", the City of Melbourne is not 5 million people, its 200 thousand something. --Caltraser5 (talk) 03:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

See the above discussion on the talk page about this subject. We are quite different from the US in this respect in that 'city' refers to metro area in Australia and LGAs are generally referred to as local government areas, council areas or LGAs. 'City proper' is not a common term. Furthermore, I believe this in fact diminishes Brisbane as it suggests a city of 1.2 million. It is an organic entity of 2.6 million and yes, smaller than both Sydney and Melbourne. Also, saying Melbourne is the 33rd largest city in Australia (as the City of Melbourne LGA is ranked #33) would be an irrelevant thing to put in the lede. I really think putting any undue weight on LGAs by calling it a city proper and noting in the first para that it is the largest is not relevant in the Australian context. The lede already says it sprawls over several of Australia's most populous LGAs and the section on governancy refers to the BCC LGA being the largest. For me personally, this is similar to saying Brisbane has Australia's busiest airport which while maybe correct as a technicaliy does not really reflect the common-sensical reality which people are aware of and if anything I believe it does not really suit the purposes of an encyclopedia article nor portray the city in a good and accuracte light. You and I agree on many things but I think this one point is one area where we deviate.StormcrowMithrandir 03:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

---

Read the above -----

I'm already in aggreance with you, but if we're going to rank cities by METROPOLITAN area than you must say metropolitan area, a city refers to an LGA which even you said is not how we rank cities in Australia. So you're arguing my own point for me. This article is also going to need to change its title List of cities in Australia by population, since you agreed we don't rank cities in Australia based on city data but metro data than the article needs to be retitled List of cities in Australia by metropolitan area--Caltraser5 (talk) 03:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not opposed to it saying 3rd largest metropolitan area as long as the other articles like Syd, Melb, Per, Adel, keep it that way. Also, the first para of the lede already refers to the City of Brisbane LGA being the most populous LGA in the nation which I think is more than enough as there is no need to unduly emphasise LGAs in the lede. Re the list of largest cities, that article includes a list of Greater Capital City Statistical Areas (the primary one - and the one which ABS updates every year in their regional population projections precisely because it is the primary measure used in all statistics), Significant Urban Areas (the second one) and LGAs. Therefore saying 'cities' as a rough amalgamation of all these three things should be fine and suitable.StormcrowMithrandir 04:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Or you can say third most populous metropolitan city, but should reference the metro area rather than simply say "city".--Caltraser5 (talk) 04:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Caltraser5:. First: "City of Brisbane" is an administrative unit. Officially is local government area (LGA). Second: Brisbane, Sydney and other - these are not metropolitan areas. Metropolitan area in urban sociology / urban anthropology contrasts with natural environment, this is just geographical and ubanistic concept. Brisbane, Sydney etc are statistical units (Greater Capital City Statistical Area - GCCSA), definied by Australian Bureau of Statistics. Of course, based on metropolitan area or urban agglomeration but these are statistical units, not metropolitan area. Third: in the world, there are different definitions for the word of "city". There are metropolitan cities in few countries, prefecture-cities in some countries in Asia, in Poland there are cities with powiat rights (city-county), London also uses a different definition, therefore, the definition of Brisbane, Sydney as a "city" is perfectly justified and supported by sources. Use of the term "metropolitan area" for Brisbane, Sydney etc is unacceptable, Also your name of article of List of cities in Australia by metropolitan area. Article of List of cities in Australia by population contains information about both: Greater capital city statistical areas by population and List of local government areas by population, there is no need to create new articles about this. However, I partially support your edition of adding the information that the City of Brisbane - main part of Brisbane is the largest administrative unit in Australia, such information should be included in the article. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 02:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is that the lede is being used to introduce new (and complex information) instead of summarising what is in the rest of the article. If there was a section called Population of Brisbane, then the issue could be discussed more thoroughly, explaining that there are different ways to measure the population of Brisbane and how that compares with other places when measured by the same metric. It should explain that Qld is unusual in having had a long history of amalgamating LGAs into very large ones, like Brisbane, Moreton Bay, Gold Coast etc. and why it is not meaningful to compare City of Brisbane with City of sydney etc because of the massive differences in their areas. Basically bring the reader to the same level of understanding that we have. Then we can discuss how to summarise in the lede. I note there is no requirement to put info in the lede or the infobox if is not capable of being distilled down into a short fact or value. Indeed, I think the Brisbane article would be greatly improved if we stripped the lede out as it contains info that is NOT summarising other parts of the articles. I would also suggest stripping out images that aren't illustrating a part of the textual content or aren't positioned near that content. The article has become extremely unbalanced because some people seem incapable of contributing below the first heading. It is important to remember that most readers of Wikipedia are viewing through the mobile interface but most contributions come through the desktop interface, so what we see as contributors is not how most readers see the article. It's often worth looking at an article through your phone in mobile view to understand the difference it makes.Kerry (talk) 03:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

hilly floodplain

Isn't that a contradiction? The river floods the hills? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Whilst I understand precisely what you mean, I think in Brisbane's case it is an especially good description. The city literally lies on a flood plain around a river which is nonetheless dotted with hills. That is, a flood plain which contains a significant number (certainly compared with other Australian metro areas) of hills and peaks.StormcrowMithrandir 01:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Meanjin (and other spellings)

AFAIK, the Indigenous name Meanjin applies to the peninsula of land where the Brisbane CBD is located and not to all of what we call Brisbane today. See [5] page 20. So it would be appropriate for the CBD article but not this article. Kerry (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Kerry Raymond for your input Kerry, I'll look more into this. There is also an ongoing discussion about this type of usage here if you would like to get involved Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board Poketama (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Poketama: Yes, I am aware of the discussion. But I think there is a fundamental level at which we are missing the point. Wikipedia articles on Australian places are constructed around the settlements and boundaries established by non-Indigenous people. So trying to retrofit Indigenous names onto these doesn't make a lot of sense (noting that there may be multiple Indigenous groups with different names for the "same" place). Even with non-Indigenous history (a topic I know more about), we have many former small suburb names in Brisbane (and this is probably true elsewhere) that have disappeared e.g. Mowbraytown, Mayne, Jay Park, Thompson Estate etc. A few persist like Rosalie. When people mostly walked as their main means of transportation, their sense of distance was considerably different to our present day sense of distance because we have cars and we no longer need those hyperlocal names. Indigenous people also travelled on foot so we should not be surprised that their naming is also hyperlocal and the boundaries of their place names relates to what would have been natural boundaries for them, such as rivers and creeks too deep to easily cross in any everyday way, mountains, etc. These traditional boundaries are now often transcended by bridges and culverts and highways except for more major rivers like the Brisbane River (which continues to divide Brisbane in our present-day thinking) and the Great Dividing Range where it remains expensive to build a road across it. With the difference in scale and boundaries, it is very hard to assign an Indigenous name to a present-day place article in Wikipedia. We might do better to try to construct maps of Indigenous place names without regard to non-Indigenous place names and boundaries and write articles about those places, but we will run into issues with sourcing. If you are interested in Indigenous place names around Brisbane, a good source is Tom Petrie's book which gives a very precise definition of Meanjin. Kerry (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Universities

I am a bit of loss to understand why there are 5 universities presented as a bullet list and then a quick mention of some others (with USC appearing in both). I suggest a better presentation would be to have a bullet list of the 3 unis which can be described as headquartered in Brisbane (UQ, QUT, GU), then a second bullet list of other universities which have a campus in the Brisbane (USQ which has its hq in Toowoomba, USC which has its hq in Sunshine Coast, etc), indicating where they are headquartered as a secondary aspect. I feel the current structure misrepresents USQ and USC as being more in Brisbane than they really are. And when we mention the campus locations of the Brisbane HQ unis, I think we need to consistently indicate those which not in Brisbane or not mention any non-Brisbane campuses, Eg UQ's Gatton campus is not in Brisbane, but as presented, the reader might infer it was, meanwhile GU's Gold Coast campus is not mentioned at all, but equally not in Brisbane. As I am well aware that Wikipedia contributions involving universities frequently involve some conflict of interest as many contributors are graduates/employees of those universities, I disclose I have COI with UQ, QUT and USQ. I am aware that marketing materials for some universities over-represent their "Brisbane-ness" as it is seen as a marketing advantage and students from further afield are often surprised on arrival to find they are studying at places that are not as much in "Brisbane" as they had understood "Brisbane" to be. I think this article should establish a consistent approach to provide greater clarity. Your thoughts? Kerry (talk) 07:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Kerry. As I wrote the original paragraph, I have re-worded it as per your suggestion. I think I initially did it that way as USQ and USC are obviously trying to re-orient so that they are effectively seen as being 'of' their original origin as well as Brisbane-based given they now have two campuses each within Greater Brisbane. That said, their 'heritage' is in Toowoomba and the Sunshine Coast respectively so I think you make a good point. Therefore I have put them into a separate paragraph noting they are headquartered elsewhere, whilst keeping UQ, QUT and GU in the main paragraph.--StormcrowMithrandir 11:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

References to Meanjin

Do we have sources to clarify whether the Aboriginal "Meanjin" name refers to the geographical location as it appeared prior to construction of the city, or was this a secondary instance of identifying in Aboriginal language, the already established city once it was built? 203.46.132.214 (talk) 05:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

There's sources for both, with Meanjin seeing quite wide usage today but not as accepted as Melbourne's 'Naarm'. Historically it referred to a smaller area in the CBD. Poketama (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Poketama, you added whole paragraph about Aboriginal peoples to the intro of article. Again. Intro is place for the most important informations about a modern city, information about some Aboriginal clans is not such information. These people did not build this city and are now margin of the population (2,8%). Additionally, this content is a copy of the content from the History section - same words and same sources, this only shows that you are spamming the articles. Your intro information has been removed because it already exists in the History section. You are not allowed to use copy-paste option and paste useless information into the article intro. Also, please read Talk:Brisbane/Archive_6#Meanjin_(and_other_spellings), this information mainly for you from a well-known respected user. I also remind you that there is no any consensus for spamming inftro of articles with texts about the aboriginal clans. So far, there have been long discussions about only Aboriginal names. There is an unofficial (small) consensus (to be verified) but it only applies to inserting an Aboriginal name but and only but if the name is indisputably applicable to the entire area of city. The Aboriginal name of a center or business center area is not the name of the entire city. Your changes in this article are unacceptable, without consensus (clan names) and against consensus (you write the Aboriginal name of the center in your main article about the city). Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 18:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Can you look at the diffs before starting debates? I added like 5 words to the intro, because what was there previously was inaccurate. Poketama (talk) 11:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Meanjin - yet again

This has been discussed before [6]. Meanjin is the name of the Brisbane CBD area, not the whole of metropolitan Brisbane which is the subject of this article. Since the existence of metropolitan Brisbane was unlikely to have been foreseen by Indigenous people, they are unlikely to have had a name for it! Most Indigenous naming is very local. Kerry (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. Meanjin seems to have transcended the meaning of just the CBD and is now commonly used to refer to Brisbane as a whole. I'm not sure how we correctly implement this, but Edenglassie definitely doesn't belong, and it is unsourced. ThatESC (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @ThatESC - Meanjin is frequently used by First Nations peoples to refer to Brisbane, as evidenced by the provided sources that were removed. As we are talking about Aboriginal naming affairs, I feel that we should really be privileging the knowledge of Indigenous peoples and not imposing our own post-colonial beliefs about what Meanjin and the different terms refer to. For example, the Turrbal peoples, one of the Traditional Owners of Brisbane, explicitly say that "the traditional name of Brisbane is Meeanjin - the place of the blue water lilies" [7]. In terms of "Edenglassie", that name was used when the area of Brisbane was still part of the NSW penal colony, but it was Brisbane that was gazetted when the town was declared. [8] Tim (Talk) 08:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't see an issue in saying the Turrbal people now use the term for the wider Brisbane area so long as we acknowledge the origin of the term being the CBD area (or the Gardens Point tip of the CBD, as some sources suggest). Kerry (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Would you mind sharing some reliable sources that can say, with authority, that Meanjin referred to just the northern part of the now-CBD? Tim (Talk) 02:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Brisbane Main Photos

Hi yall, can I have some clarification on whether this is acceptable? Changed Story Bridge to evening image, looks way better imo, and the City Hall image to be foggy/lighted up. Brissy always looks best in that goth/darker tone rather then in sun. So I think it suits it. All images are the same except I changed the Queensland Parliament photo (its not that big a landmark tbh), to Burnett Lane which is one of Brisbane's best known food precincts. I was gonna put Howard smith wharves but again Brissy doesn't look the best under full sunlight and there's barely any night pictures that don't repeat the Story Bridge image.

If you can think of something to replace burnett lane with lemme know, but Qld Parliament is not that important.--Mirka1989 (talk) 12:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

"looking better in goth/darker tone" is not a valid or compelling reason to use an image. The montage is not an art project, it's a collection of carefully chosen, crisp, clear images that shows landmarks in their best light and angle from a neutral perspective. Your chosen images are low resolution and from really obscure angles too. Good for instagram maybe, not so good for wikipedia. And honestly, ALL cities look better in darker, foggier conditions. That's just an effect of pretty lights and cinematic-like atmosphere. If we were to use your criteria for choosing images, all photomontages on all city pages would be nightshots - Democfest (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Just checked out your page mate and you primarily edit the Sydney main photos. So given that you clearly have a bias against anything pro Brissy. Especially since historically Sydney + Melbs ppls look down on us. Only looking for Brisbaners to comment on their montage, thanks fam.--Mirka1989 (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

That's precisely what you should not be doing. And in fact cannot do here. This is a global encyclopaedia, with hundreds of editors from all over the world experienced at putting together sets of photos for articles. Alleging bias in other editors will not gain you brownie points here. Wikipedia articles are not meant for marketing. They are to provide accurate, well-sourced information on their subjects. As for montages in city articles, I personally think they are rather useless. They tend to finish up in the article as a cluster of tiny images, that readers just gloss over on their way to finding real information. Others will comment here. Read their comments. Learn from them. (As a new editor, I'd also recommend getting out and looking at a lot of other articles, not just Brisbane, but from all over the world.)

Are you a Brisbaner? If not then why you commenting here ?--Mirka1989 (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Please don't make personal attacks, every editor has a right to comment in good faith. I'm sure more locals will post their thoughts, but you should treat all perspectives with respect. There will be a diversity of opinions on any question like this and you should be prepared for that if you want to make positive contributions that get implemented.

If we can return to the substance of the post, I think the night photo of Story Bridge is an improvement on the previous image, so I think that's good. Personally I am fine with Queensland Parliament being replaced by a different, suitable subject, and the current City Hall photo is not ideal (poorly framed, security cameras visible), so I think it can be improved. Your chosen photos, however, have issues. They are low resolution, and ideally the four photos should really be cropped to a rectangle rather than square. I don't think Burnett Lane is the most compelling subject for the montage, but I'll let others comment on that. The photo, though, is unclear and doesn't tell the viewer much. Similarly, the City Hall photo is an interesting image but at an angle and not very illustrative of the building, I think we can do better.

"I'd also suggest you install and use the CropTool on Commons, it creates a higher quality crop without having to manually download and edit the image, and it creates a new image file that usefully points back to the original. I'd use a consistent ratio to crop with for the montage, maybe 16:10. Gracchus250 (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Not at all a personal attack, but Brisbane editors should be commenting on what they want, not Sydney editors. I'll try the Croptool out later. Thanks Gracchus.--Mirka1989 (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

You have a lot to learn about how Wikipedia works. Suggesting that "Sydney editors" have no right to comment on the Brisbane article is pretty close to a personal attack. One useful tool you should learn about for making conversations here work more smoothly is WP:INDENT. Please have a look there and apply it. HiLo48 (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks mate, democfest is welcome to criticize but ultimately the Brisbane main photos need input primarily from Brisbaners.--Mirka1989 (talk) 04:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

If i was so "anti-Brisbane" as you claim, i wouldn't have put in the effort to replace the previous images in the montage with crisper, higher quality versions, especially that current skyline image, which now arguably shows brisbane in a much more impressive manner. I think you're coming across as pretty bitter that you don't get free reign over what goes onto the page. This isn't a tourist brochure for you to satisfy your own personal city vs city agenda (pretty clear that you dislike anyone that's not from brisbane). Also pretty hilarious that you had to trawl through my contribution history to come up with a weak argument to try and attack me. Democfest (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Your opinion here is irrelevant.--Mirka1989 (talk) 04:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Nobody's opinion on any article in Wikipedia is irrelevant. HiLo48 (talk) 05:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Of course fam, but he ignored my post and tried to construe asking for Brisbaner's feedback as a "personal attack", and then claim I hate people not from Brissy. Not interested in that sort of bs, he's more than welcome to contribute something not bait, otherwise his opinion is irrelevant.--Mirka1989 (talk) 05:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Some very bold words coming from a new user. Your opinion is just as "irrelevant" as mine. Hilarious that you think living somewhere gives you some sort of authority of superiority over someone else. I'll be sure to make sure you can never edit or have an opinion on anything non-Brisbane related going by your logic. Democfest (talk) 23:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

No mate, I said it was irrelevant because you started going on a rant about it being a personal attack. If you have something useful to contribute you're welcome. Thanks fam.--Mirka1989 (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Global city?

The first sentence of the 4th paragraph describes Brisbane as a "global city" and provides two links/references provided [27] & [28] and also a link to the Wikipedia article for "Global Cities".

While this classification may be consistent with criteria provided in [27] & [28], the Wikipedia article most certainly does not, under any of the various classification models discussed, include Brisbane.

I would recommend deleting the link to the Wikipedia article. Tamatu (talk) 02:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree, and have removed it. HiLo48 (talk) 02:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)