Talk:Canberra/Archive 2

Proposed changes to headings
User:Fudoreaper has changed Access to Transport, which I think was a very good change and one that I'd been meaning to do for some time. I think some other changes to headings are necessary.


 * Now that there is a Transport heading, I think that public transport should be moved up into it as a sub heading. Transport should be a larger heading and I don't think it needs to come under Geography. We should expand on it by creating road, rail, air and public transport headings, but that might be going a bit too far as there wouldn't be much in them.


 * Also, I think most of the headings under Aspects of Canberra can stand alone, and don't need to come under this awkward heading. Embassies could perhaps be moved to Institutions, and Universities should be expanded and chnaged to to Education or perhaps it could also be moved to Institutions.  Other than that I don't see why these subheadings can't stand alone. The whole article is about Aspects of Canberra.


 * I've changed structure under Geography to urban structure, but this could also be urban layout or urban setting or whatever.

-Does anybody have any concerns about these proposed changes? Adz 03:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind words, Adz. Let me just explain the reason i changed the heading.  I went to the canberra article to disover the canberra airport.  I looked for a "transport" or "transportation" section, but found none, and had to do a find for "airport".  Discovering it was in "Access" i decided that was completely non-standard and confusing, and adjusted it.


 * Usually cities have a "transportation" (or "transport" for UK english) section, with subsections as needed. Personally, this is what i would recommend.  A main section "transport" and then add subsections as needed.  Some cities have "roads" "air" "sea" or similar.  Some have a "public transit" sub-section, some it's in the main section.    But a main "transportation" section is extremely common.


 * In general, thinking about headings and making them the most logical, the most obvious, seems like a good contribution to wikipedia. Assisting readers in finding the information they seek is part of the job of an editor, i think. -- Fudoreaper 03:53:17, 2005-08-14 (UTC)

You might want to check out WikiProject Cities which suggests a template for sections for use on all cities pages.--nixie 03:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Getting this article to featured standard
Since Australia has become a featured article, it would be nice to get Canberaa featured too. I've already reorganised the sections, here are some more things that need to be worked on --nixie 05:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Lead section needs work
 * Infobox to summarise city details
 * More factual climate information to the geography section
 * A demographics section
 * A culture section
 * Rewrite the economy section
 * Merging the institutions and embassies into the text somewhere
 * Write articles for red links


 * Great job nixie! I've made a few minor canges to Governance and will try to help out when I have some more time. I'm also happy to go out and take photos if there are any photos which you think we should include but don't have. I have taken some recently which I will upload to another website (flickr.com) so you can see if they are of any use before I upload them to wiki. I have uploaded a picture of the ACT Legislative Assembly at that page which is slightly better quality than the pic on this page, although taken from a fifferent angle etc. Take a look and see if you like it.
 * If nobody objects, I might also move Urban Structure to a sub-heading under Geography. I don't think the two should be separated like that. Also, Transport often sits under either Geogpaphy or Economy. I think in this case it probably also belongs as a sub heading under geography, after urban structure (but I think I have a bias).

Adz 10:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I've been modelling the structure on Mumbai and Johannesburg which are both FA's, a rule of thumb for these kind of acticles is to avoid ===h3=== headings since they often just bloat the already long table of contents. I kind of like the urban structure section since the planned aspect of Canberra is unique, it could probably use a better name. Mabye it could be reworked to be more like the suburbs section in the J'burg article?

I can't find the area of Canberra anywhere.

Your LA pic is a huge improvement on the old one, whats the link to your Flikr? Other pics that would be good would be something for the economy section - mabye civic, the industrial park near the airport or one or one of the gov. departments. Sport and rec could use a pic too, an action shot, the AIS or a stadium something.--nixie 11:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look at the J'burg and Mumbai articles and look at the suburbs section. If you want to find a suitable photo for the section it might be worth looking at Ainslie, Dickson, Dickson Centre or Warramanga. (I've browsed most of the other suburbs stubs and there aren't many pics). In addition to my flickr page where I've uploaded a few picks, I have also uploaded some to Civic. I've been wanting to take some of the airport so will head out there when the weather is good on Sunday. I think I have a Treasury Building Pic and will try to get some sport ones. Maybe also the ANU. I only have dial-up, so uploading them takes some time, but will see what I can do. I'll try to get an ACTION bus for the transport section. Oh, and if you give me until Monday afternoon, I'll be able to find out the area of Canberra for you. Adz 14:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I can get shots at ANU, I might also try and get the Belconnen bus interchange during the week. The way the flag is cut off Image:ParlamentHouseACT.jpg bugs me, it's a great shot but might be a good one to redo.--nixie 04:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I have taken a new pic but it was a cloudy day today so it doesn't look great. I haven't uploaded it yet. Check out Commonwealth Place, Canberra for an idea of what it looks like. It is essentially the same picture but from a different angle. Let me know if you want me to upload it.
 * I wasn't able to get out to the airport before my battery died, but I did take a photo of the Treasury Building which I've now uploaded to 'Economy'.


 * I like the Commonwealth Place pic and have put in this article too for now. Does the other one you took also show the High Court?--nixie 11:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * No, sorry. I have ones that show Questacon. I have uploaded one of the ones I thought was a better one. Its located at Adz 11:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC) P.S. I can crop it to cut Questacon out.
 * No need to croip, it's good as is--nixie 03:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Update
I've been messing around with the structure, and settled on a sites of interest section in place of a culture section. Large cultural events can probably be worked into the text in the tourism section, I can only think of 4 big events, the National Folk Festival, the Canberra Show, Summernats and the Celebrate Canberra/multicultural festival that is held in association with Canberra Day. There are some other things that could still be added/addressed: --nixie 03:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Some info on the dragway in the sports section
 * Sites of interest could use some expansion, it's missing the zoo, questacon and probably a few other things
 * Should the article mention that ANU is one of the best universities in the world?
 * Should there be a map in the infobox?
 * A picture of one of the historic homes would be good for the history section if anyone has one, otherwise I will try to get one

floriade is another event they have ( a spring flower festival)

transport
You're doing a great job nixie. i'm only sorry that I don't have more time to help. The transport section needs a bit of work. It says that there is no rail, but there are reil services to Melbourne. Metlink is melb intractity public transport. There are Countrylink services to Sydney (these were suspended for a time, which is maybe why it says that there aren't any. Also worth mentioning the distance of track in ACT (I think its 8 or 12 km or something. Will look it up). I'll also mention the bike path network (a lot of canberrans cycle, even in winter). I might not get around to doing any of this before wednesday though, but would really like to. I'll also mention that many of the outer suburbs were designed post war and were designed with the car in mind, hence large freeway-like parkways all over the place going to belco, Woden etc - and I'll describe them a bit. Also, I think my lead on the size of Canberra was adead end, but I'll keep chasing it for you and let you know. Adz 04:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I found the area in 2003, from the ABS.--nixie 04:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Grammar
I've fixed some typos and tweaked a bunch of paragraphs that had a fairly choppy style. The comma fairy has been overly generous in this article. Garglebutt / (talk) 07:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough; I'm probably the comma fairy; as long as the meaning is still crystal clear. Tony 01:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Population
Does anyone know where the populatio of 322,000 comes from, I'd like something more recent that the census but can't find anything official. The 2004 estimate for the ACT is 324,000, but nothing for Canberra specifically from the ABS.--nixie 03:57, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * According to the ABS Stat Div for Canberra, population was 323,004 as of June 2003. I remember the ABS having really good statistics on metropolitan populations, but I haven't been able to find them since the ABS website was redesigned.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:49, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If you want more recent statistics, perhaps you could look at the 2004 ABS Yearbook. That should Canberra's population.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Organisation
I think theres some minor problems with organisation, maybe all the geography related sections should be together at the front of the article, like this: 1. Districts 2. Geography 3. Suburbs 4. Sites of interest. Also, history is usually at the end of an article rather than at the beginning Cfitzart 04:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I am trying to follow a sectioning pattern similar to the other featured cities, as has already been discussed on this page. Since the districts have no real function, ie. they are not administratvie districts or anything similar, there is no need to have a separate section for them. I also really dislike the idea of moving the hisotry to the end of the article, Canberra makes no sense if you don't first understand that is was/is a purpose built city and the reasons for its establishment--nixie 05:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

ok sure, its just it makes it easier to navigate if you wanted to look up Belconnen etc. - the New york article has boroughs listed in point form for instance.. how about putting it in point form where it was already listed? Cfitzart 06:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It looks good in point form there, but it does make alot a white space. Mabye a short descriptor saying when it was established and how many suburbs it has would work to fill up the gap.--nixie 06:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * ok I put some in, found some info here Cfitzart 07:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think we can fix this by expanding on the main article (List of suburbs of Canberra) and explaining the Districts, settlement history, urban hierarchy etc. I'll do some work on it now. Adz 10:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I've created a Suburbs of Canberra article. I now realise that it might actually have been counter productive to have all that information sitting in an article of its own, but incoprorating the info into a 'list' article like List of suburbs of Canberra would alos have been problematic. Feel free to use it in any way that might be useful. You might want to link to it in the suburbs section and perhaps reduce the length of that section a bit. I'll do more work on it when I have time but I need to attend to other things at the moment. Adz 01:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I was thinking for doing this myself to get an article like Suburbs of Johannesburg--nixie 01:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

the opening
In the opening sentence, the word 'capital' appears three times, and 'the Australian Capital Territory' appears in the second sentence soon after its first appearance.

Canberra is the capital city of the Commonwealth of Australia, the capital city of the Australian Capital Territory and the largest inland city in Australia. It is located at the northern end of the Australian Capital Territory, and has population of 323,004. Canberra is located approximately 150 km inland from Australia's east coast, 300 km southwest of Sydney and 650 km northeast of Melbourne.

Does anyone object if it's changed thus:

Canberra is the capital and largest inland city of the Commonwealth of Australia. It is located at the northern end of the Australian Capital Territory, about 150 km inland, 300 km southwest of Sydney, and 650 km northeast of Melbourne.

The population might be better stated elsewhere.

Tony 08:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Be bold :-) - sounds fine--AYArktos 08:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Fix anything that sounds clunky. The population is there from an earlier version which tried to compare Canberra's population to other Australian cities, which had no source. I got terribly confused when I was tyring to rank cities based on population (statistical divisions, local government areas, metropolitan areas and so on, so many to choose from) when I tried to verify it, that I ended up chopping it out. It'd be nice to have it in the lead somewhere.--nixie 08:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Clarification
I found this gem when editing today:
 * As in the Australian States, a cabinet system of Government operates rather than local government model.

Does anyone know what exactly was intended here, neither type of administration is explained and though I think I know what it means, it may not be the case for a non-Australian reader?--nixie 08:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think what one is meant to infer is that the ACT does not have local or municipal government, and thus, comes directly under the administration of the Territory Government. No? I could be wrong. But I do think whomever wrote it was trying to convey something that relates to the governmental arrangements of the ACT at large. Well, that's what the confusing "As in the Australian States" implies, at least. Perhaps best to just explain that, as LGA's don't exist, the ACT Government assumes what role would otherwise be undertaken by LGA's elsewhere. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Upon actually reading the section concerned (silly me), it seems the sentence is just stating the executive arrangments. But for the executive focus, it would be entirely redundant. However, it perhaps should be reworded or removed. The section does state, only a couple sentences above, that "As such, the traditional roles of both a City Council and State Government are performed by the one entity, the ACT Legislative Assembly." Same thing? --Cyberjunkie | Talk 10:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The section already says that there are no LGA's in Canberra. I think this is trying to say the the ACT is governed like a state rather than like a local government with a mayor etc. As it, it doesn't convey alot of information.--nixie 09:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I worte it originally, I think to replace something else which was equally if not moreso confusing trying to explain that ACT doesn't have local government but that it has ministers etc. In any case, I have now reworded the paragraph. See if you like it. Adz 10:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, much clearer now.--nixie 10:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I realise that there is always going to be an unavoidable overlap, but I'm a bit concerned that the Governance section is more about ACT at large than Canberra. Canberra is the ACT, one might retort, but I think it should be narrower nonetheless. ( Meanwhile, ACT doesn't even have a Government section... )--Cyberjunkie | Talk 10:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

They are entirely the same entity. I think a few of the ACT's could be written out to give the appearace of it being more focussed on Canberra, but I can't really see how to narrow it down otherwise, any suggestion?--nixie 10:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't see how the ACT's participation in COAG is relevant to Canberra. Nor why discussion of the Commonwealth's power over territories is necessary. I think that it would be appropriate to cover, briefly, the role of the ACT Government, the role of the Commonwealth and of the National Capital Authority. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 10:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

pictures
I wonder whether a map of Australia showing the ACT is suitable? Foreigners will need to visualise where it is. The panoramic view from the Telstra Tower is a little strange—doesn't look like a city. Tony 08:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I was going to add a map of Australia showing the location to the infox. I kind of like the panorama, it shows how bush Canberra is, I don't mind if it get replaced though.--nixie 08:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Some other pics: Image:Canberra parlimentary axis.JPG, Image:Civic from Mt Ainsle.JPG.--nixie 09:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I really like the picture of Civic from Mt Ainslie!! I don't know where it would best sit though. I think there are a lot of pictures of buildings. I like the axis picture too, but I think that there are only so many pictures of Parliament House that this article can take. I'll use these pics in the articles about Civic and the Parliamentary Triangle when I get around to doing them. And I haven't forgotten that I said I would update the Transport section - although I think it is nearly there. I think it just needs a reference to the system of urban roads/parkways. Adz 10:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you think each heading should have a picture? put some in for Education, Transport & Media, feel free to find better ones. Also, maybe a map of Canberra showing the districts would be better than the map of where Canberra is in the ACT - that map suits the ACT article more than it does the Canberra one.Cfitzart 00:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Maps are a pain since they need to be made by us, ie. you can't claim fair use on a map. The ACT map does show the districts so potentially it could be cropped to do so more clearly- I've messed around with this, but it doesn't look good.--nixie 00:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe theres a map on a public place somewhere we could take a photo of? I noticed a map in Civic the other day that didnt have a Copyright notice on it Cfitzart 00:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The only kind of map that is going to look good one made in photoshop like this one Image:Johannesburg region map with names.jpg. That kind of map would be ok in the suburbs section, but really says nothing about geography.--nixie 01:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I have been searching for the illustrator files for my maps of the ACT that a created a while back, as illustrated by the one currently on the page intended to show the location of parliament house. Hopefully the files will turn up on my home computer when I get home this evening. What specifically did people want from a map of Canberra for this page? Also I never got around to finishing the map of central Canberra that is used on this page. It currently contains many spelling errors. Hopefully I can find the original fo rthis file too. Martyman 23:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

unique contractual agreement?
Please advise whether the following statement in 'Governance' should be removed or further explained; I note that it's similar to the previous sentence.

The AFP operates under a unique contractual agreement with the Australian Capital Territory Government to provide Policing and Crime Prevention services to the ACT community.

Tony 23:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Tony, I've changed the wording. i think it reads better now. Take a look and see what you think. (I've removed unique because I think the AFP also provide policing in most if not all of the other territories, with the exception of NT, and possibly have a contractual agreement with the Gov't of norfolk island (although I don't know for sure).

Adz 03:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

economy
Is the High Court really a major employer in Canberra? I've removed it, since the High Court has already been mentioned.

Is the mail-order porn industry really worth mentioning? I'm sure it's a lot smaller than some other private-sector industries (e.g., retail), and kind of makes Canberra look sleazy. It's mentioned before tourism, I note.

'Gross State Product' looks odd; is this the official title?

Canberra is, per capita, the richest city in Australia (I think); is this worth mentioning?

Real-estate prices: does anyone have the stats over the last few decades?

Tony 23:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Richest city—it's there in 'demographics', so I've transferred it to 'Economy'.Tony 00:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Gross state product is the offical name, though I've seen gross territoey product around the place too, see the ref.--nixie 06:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

suburbs
Some examples of names of suburbs, and their derivations, would be interesting—perhaps one for each category?

'Many of Canberra's suburbs are named after famous Australians, early settlers, or use Aboriginal words for their title.'Tony 00:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Feel free to mention a couple but i wouldn't go overboard. - this information might also be better placed in the Suburbs of Canberra article instead. Some of the articles contain this information, but you can also find it at ACTPLA's origin of place names website
 * Adz 02:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

a few other points
Can 'Media' be subsumed into another section? There's no section explicitly on culture. What about 'Recreation and culture' as one section, subsuming the current sport, media, and any other cultural information.

I've shortened the media section, because, let's face it, there's not a lot that's distinctive about broadcasting in Canberra, or any other Australian city in particular.

Tony 01:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Media

 * While at present there appears to be significant homogeneity around media across Australia, that was certainly not always the case: television stations and radio stations were local into the 1970s. I suspect also Canberra's reception of the media, or comprehension of national events is different because of the involvement in public administration and perhaps also average education levels of adults:compare say the content of Albury's Border Morning Mail, or even the Adelaide Advertiser,  with The Canberra Times; though all three publications have been dumbing down over the past decade.  I do see Media as a separate subject to Culture though of course linked. --AYArktos 01:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I've reverted the removal of media services as these are specifically Canberra related. How else would I find out what the local media outlets are called and the telecommunications infrastructure available? I reworked the wording a little to be less of a sales pitch. Garglebutt / (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with keeping info about media for two reasons. Primarily, people who visit the site from overseas may not know anything about broadcasting in Australia. If you like you could say "Like most other Australian cities, Australia has five free to air television stations", but even then, this isn't the case. Hobart doesn't have three, NT doesn't, and some capital cities have community television, so they have more than three. (so is it the same everywhere after all?). And the second reason ties in with the first, and that is that there are differences in name (Seven=Prime, Nine=Win), but also differences in service providers. we don't have Optus TV in canberra, nor do we have Austar like other regional areas do, but we do have TransACT which nobody else has - its unique to Canberra. You don't know who is going to visit the Canberra page or what they will want to know about it. I think these things are significant.
 * In terms of Culture, I think it is worth mentioning Canberra theatre and playhouse, community theatres in the town centres, Llewellyn Hall at ANU, and maybe Stage 88.
 * Adz 02:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't forget The Street Theatre. :) Ambi 03:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll just tweak the reversion slightly.Tony 04:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Headings
I think there could be some rationalisation so that for example transport and suburbs could be subheadings of georgraphy and, as Tony suggested, media, sport, culture could be a subset of recreation and culture - though media is not merely recreation but an importnat part of governance and the economy ... hmm not sure - any further ideas?--AYArktos 02:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * groupling headings is always difficult because things inevitable cross over. I initially suggested making suburbs part of geog, and wasn't sure whether Transport sould go in geog or economy (it depends on your point of view). nixie suggested that this wasn't a good idea because it makes the contents table blow out out-of-control. I suggest experimenting with sub-headings and previewing before saving and seeing what it does to the table of contents. Lets consider it and see what other people think before making a final decision. Adz 02:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

culture
so as not to detract from the discussion going on about media, I thought I should start this list under a separate heading. Things we might want to include if we have a culture section: - we obviously wouldn't list all of these, but mention them in well written prose in a Culture section - if we have one. I think it's also worth mentioning that even though Canberra is a regional city, unlike other regional cities, it receives many of the major productions that tour the capital cities. Adz 03:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Canberra theatre and playhouse,
 * community theatres in the town centres,
 * Llewellyn Hall at ANU,
 * Stage 88
 * Gorman house
 * Street Theatre/ANU student theatre groups
 * National Folk Festival
 * Convention centre for concerts
 * gigs in bars such as Tillies (although most cities would have those, so not worth mentioning?)

Tillies is probably not worth mentioning. I agree otherwise. Is there any indigenous culture in Canberra that is distinctive enough to mention? Tony 04:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I have always been under teh impression that Canberra has always had quite a large number of local bands for it's size (and supposed lack of culture). I wonder where you would go to find stats on something like that. Martyman 04:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The only way I could think of would be to ask TripleJ whether they receive any more entries from the CAT than they have from other similar sized regions. I think it seems that cities have their moments. bands come and go. there was a time when a lot of bands were coming out of Brisbane, then there was a time when a lot of bands were coming out of WA. I don't know why. You might be right Martyman, but I don't know if there is any way of checking.

Media, culture and heading
To avoid things getting too confused in the above sections I'll comment here. First we need to remember that we're not working in a vacuum and this article should have a similar structure to other city articles, and it should stay focussed on the things that are unique about Canberra. Johannesburg and Mumbai are really a good articles to use as a model for this one, but they can be improved upon. The order of the sections is something that can still be tweaked. Secions should be arrange roughly in odrer of interst to a non-Australian reader.

I review quite alot of articles on peer review and FAC, and people overuse ===h3===, for example making transport and suburbs into subsections of geography dones't really make sense in terms of content continuity, they are well written sections covering unique (in the case of suburbs) and relevant content. On the issue of media, its true that there is nothing especially interesting about the Canberra media, I think an a media + culture section perhaps incorporating sites of interest would be a good addition or a culture section that includes the sites of interest plus the cultural stuff discussed above. I also think that sport should just be renamed sport and kept as a separate section.--nixie 06:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

LinkFix dump

 * User:Ambush Commander/LinkFix dump

================================================================================ LinkFix Dump Canberra 2005-08-31.15-53-29

=
=================================================================== 21 Commonwealth of Australia -> Australia 31 Surveyor -> Surveying 43 Savannah -> DISAMBIG 66 Italian Language -> Italian language 84 Mount Ainslie -> Mount Ainslie, Australian Capital Territory 112 Fibre-optic -> Optical fiber 120 Postgraduate -> Quaternary education 120 Officer -> DISAMBIG 154 Australian Rules football -> Australian rules football 163 List of Canberra suburbs -> List of suburbs of Canberra &mdash; Ambush Commander (Talk) 20:51, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) DONE
 * What a useful bot!  I have fixed most of the links.  The exception is Commonwealth of Australia.  I think it is not the same as Australia and while currently it may be redirected, at some stage someone may create an article.  Some of the fixes I have just dome to the links but not to the text - eg postgraduate.  I don't think the capitalisation on Australian Rules football is correct, but have replaced the primary link.  Similarly, I have spelt fibre in the way in which I am familiar, but the primary link should be right.  Regards--AYArktos 21:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Education
I am not comfortable about the contraction to the schools component of the education article. The rationale was to "shrink schools detail since it is generally abaout the ACT, have merged the old version to the list of ACT schools". I appreciate the detail is in the List of Schools article. However, I think schools affect more people than universities and the section is out of proportion. Canberra and the ACT are synonomous for education - there is little that happens outside the city. For discussion rather than boldness at this stage.--AYArktos 22:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it was too focussed on general education in the ACT, but I'm sure there is some kind of compromise text we can come up with. A good addition to the current text would be numbers, how many primary schools, governmental and non-governmental and so on. It would probably also be good to eventually write Education in the Australain Capital Territory and have it linked from this article, like the history article is.--nixie 00:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Sport
Most of the redlinks in this article are gone except for the table of sports. I don't think we are going to get much(any) reasonable content for these if the current contributors are not involved in those teams. Perhaps these should be de-wikified with the dead links removed for now. Garglebutt / (talk) 22:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that what is in the table could be merged into the text somehow, I'll have a go later on today if noone beats me to it. --nixie 23:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Digitial tv
Does Canberra get digital broadcasts?--nixie 04:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, although we don't receive Nines interactive sport stuff and the number of shows transmitted in HDTV is very limited. Martyman 05:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Info Box Map
I have created a lower detail map better suited to the info box. A few versions are at User:Martyman/Sandbox I think the best is Canberra locator-MJC05.png. Any suggestions, comments, etc. Martyman 02:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I like the one you've suggested as well. Although are we sure we want a "whole-of-Australia" locator map? For Adelaide, I was hoping to have a map showing Adelaide relative to SA, with an inset map showing SA relative to Australia. A map like that could be used for all towns and cities within a state. I suppose that's not really needed for Canberra though.
 * I've just 'templatised' the infobox and put that image in place for the time being.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 06:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of a whole Australia infobox map, with more detailed maps in the geography or politcs sections showing, major roads, LGA's and so on. The specific state maps in the Rambot articles for example are particularly useless for someone who's not intimately familiar with the states of the US; the same might be true for Australian state maps.--nixie 06:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Ooh! The template is nice and tidy. Garglebutt / (talk) 07:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Culture
Nice work on the new culture section! It does seem a little bit biased towards "high culture" though - I suspect many people under the age of thirty might find that summary of the city's culture a little bit incomplete. Ambi 10:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Article structure
An city article has appeared on FAC with a different structure that uses subheadings, see Ann Arbor, Michigan. I've been playing around with a similar format for this article, could everyone please check out User:Petaholmes/Sandbox/Canberra. I think if too many more subheadings were added it would break up the flow of the article too much (like making a separate climate heading for the single paragraph on climate), but in terms of interest to the reader it is set out in a pretty logical fashion. We'd also need to write two additional sections on health (hopspitals, number of nursing homes eta) and utilites (where water is stored etc). Let me know what you think and I'll switch it over if there's support among the Canberran editors.--nixie 02:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I like it. Garglebutt / (talk) 03:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I like it also. Does it leave out anything that the majority of other city FAs have, though?Ambi 14:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Not a Canberran editor, but I'm ambivalent. I think I like the use of sub-headings in the "Culture" section, and the idea of an "Infrastructure" section is appealing. I would think, however, that Canberra's urban structure is deserved of its own section. Also, how many sub-headings should be used: is there a minimum or a maximum? --Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I discussed it with Nichalp, who's been helping with the peer review and is a bit of a city/country article guru, and his rule of thumb for a city article is to only use L2 headings when there are more than one to go under the L1 heading, and to keep the article under 40kb. My own opinion is that a section with less than three sentences looks pretty terrible, so I wouldn't bother with making too many small chunks. Ann Arbour uses this type of sectioning and looks like it will pass FAC. Also by moving the infobox down it hides the long TOC.--nixie 23:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nichalp that there needs to be a minimum of two sub-headings to justify their use. The use of only one appears parasitical in the contents table. However, merging "Climate" under "Geography" seems to have remedied my concern. Generally, I'm of the opinion that anything that sub-headings do can be done better by well-written paragraphs. However, I note Adz's point (below) about readability, and suppose headings are effective in that end. That said, "Health" and "Utilities" need to be longer to avoid looking purposeless. One could manage to write enough about either, though. On another matter, can it be simply "Culture" rather than "Culture and entertainment"? Anyways, I support.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 08:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I like the proposed new structure too. i actually think that the sub headings (by their nature) help group things together which actually helps with readability rather than break up the flow. it's an encyclopedia, so I don't have a problem with breaking up flow anyway. i guess it comes down to personal preference.
 * Some suggestions and specific comments I would make:
 * - I don't think that the climate paragraph is too small.
 * - I do think that urban structure should go above climate thought. This might address Cyberjunkie's comment that it should have its own section by giving it more prominence, although I am happy for it to go under geography (which I think, if memory serves me correctly) is where i moved it to some weeks ago anyway.
 * - I like the infrustructure section, however as two of the paragraphs are quite short, i would put the largest one first (in this case, Transport). I will try to expand the utilities one on the weekend (although am going skiing on Saturday). If anybody else wants to have a crack at it, i think we can mention that the powerpoles run in backyards (which is unique to canberra) and that ACTEW Corporation owns the dams, water infrastructure and sewerage infrastructure, whereas ActewAGL is a private entity (albeit part owned by actew, and therefore indiectly Gov't) which provides retail water, gas and electricity services. (ActewAGL in turn owns part of TransACT which provides some telco services in some areas). I would also mention that there are waste water treatment facilities at Fyshwick, and lower molonglo, downstream from Scrivner Dam on the Molonglo River (both operated by ACTEW Corp. I think, but need to check).
 * - under health we could mention that the ACT Emergency Services Authority operates the ACT Ambulance Service (number of Ambulance stations in the city). Also mention that although there is a hospital in Queanbeyan, the Emergency sections at the ACT hospitals serve the surronding area. ... which makes me wonder whether we should have a section on Emergency Services under Infrastructure and mention the South Care helicopter. ... or is that taking it too far?
 * Anyway, in short, I like the proposed new structure. Adz 07:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't really know much about Canberra utilites, thats why those sections are short, I was kinda hoping you guys would help flesh them out. I tried having urban srtucture as the first heading under geograhy, but it messed the pictures up so I just decided to put all the level 2 headings in alphabetical order within their sections. I think emergency services could be worked into the health section, I doubt it needs its own section. Anyway since it seems well liked, I'll cut and paste and rearrange what I've added into the article for more work. --nixie 12:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Transport - roads
I've added a bit to the Transport section, but I reckon it could do with some polishing so that it reads better. Does anybody know where to find stats on the length of roads in Canberra? Its a statistic that usually tends to find its way into encyclopedias. I think it would be listed in the ABS yearbook but I don't have access to one. (is it online?) If its not in the year book, I'll see if I can do some hunting around. Adz 08:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You shouldn't need a subscription to access the year books, I think this is that you'd be looking for but its only stats for the ACT, and might be better in the ACT article.--nixie 12:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Deleted text
I deleted the text bellow because it reads more like a travel guide than an encycopedia, not because i have a problem with mentioning significant churches. - That said, the church in Ainslie probably isn't the most significant. Feel free to edit if you want to but unfortunately I don't have time at the moment. A must-see is also All Saints Church in Ainslie. Adz 08:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You were perfectly right in removing it. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 12:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It's a must-see because it used to be the old funerary station at Rookwood cemetery. Funeral trains from Central would pull up there with a trainload of mourners and there was a platform inside. The odd tall shape of it is so that steam engines could fit through the arch. It's a curiosity but I don't think it is really of city-wide significance. It's not the first church in Canberra, nor the biggest or most popular or newest or anything but maybe the quirkiest. An article to itself, maybe, and certainly a mention in the Ainslie article, but if we include every scrap of interesting information in the Canberra article, why bother writing articles on suburbs? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.238.244.56 (talk &bull; contribs) 03:46, 20 September 2005 AEST.


 * Sounds like a very worthwhile addition to the Ainslie suburb article, particularly if we can get a photo. Garglebutt / (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It has its own article at All Saints Church, Canberra created 6 September with photos. The church  is mentioned in the Ainslie article. --User:AYArktos |  Talk 23:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Just about that All Saints Church, Canberra article, this may be a stupid question but I was wondering if the image of the Rookwood cemetary with the train coming out has been flipped, because the tower is on the opposite side. Or maybe they changed the side it was on when they rebuilt it?? Cfitzart 06:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * never mind I just read that it was in the article.. whoops Cfitzart 06:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Origin of the name Canberra
Moved this out:

The name was apparently used either in relation to the Molonglo River which, along with the Murrumbidgee River, flows through Canberra, or as reference to corroborees held during the seasonal migration of the Ngunawal people to feast on the Bogong Moths that pass through the region each spring.

Sorry, but as a Canberra resident who has done their history, some of this is quite doubtful. The whole Canberra-means-meeting-place-in-Ngunnawal is a bit doubtful. The alternate explanation of it being the name for the plain between between Black Mountain and Mount Ainslie is more plausible, IMHO.

With this section:

"or as reference to corroborees held during the seasonal migration of the Ngunawal people to feast on the Bogong Moths that pass through the region each spring."

my readings suggest the word "Uriarra", still used for an area of the Murrumbidgee, is more likely to have this meaning.

Codman 11:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that the word derivation to do with women's breasts or plain between Black Mountain and Mt Ainslie is a more plausible explanation - as stated in an earlier discussion the anatomy and the topography don't correlate well. It could be said to be a well-known alternate explanation. Can you please give ref for your assertions re Uriarra and your doubts concerning the para you excised - references to hard copy are fine. Thanks --User:AYArktos | Talk 21:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I added the word Nganbirra as it says here - Cfitzart 21:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I suspect that a tourism site is probably not the level of authority we are looking for - an authoratative study of the Ngunnawal language or references back to early setlement is needed. "Canberry" was used locally before 1850 and actually sounds quite English but that could be merely transcription of course.--User:AYArktos | Talk 21:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I've added the sections deleted back into History of Canberra where theres more room to go into a detailed explanation of the name. Cfitzart 22:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC) There are Ngunnawal people still today arent there, surely the if the accepted name was wrong there would be a big fuss about it? I know this isnt the best source either, but theres an interesting comment here about the name 'Kamberra':

"Taking its name and philosophy from the "correct" pronunciation of the district, which translates as "meeting place" in the local Ngunnawal language" Cfitzart 22:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the aboriginal cultures in southern NSW and Victoria got trashed very quickly, and very little effort was made by white folk to document those cultures, their languages, or their names beyond a few convenient regional names.Codman 08:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * See new section below - I think there are Ngunnawal people today? Cfitzart 10:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * There is a Cancer Breast Screening facility in Orange called Nganbirra. I think until a more authoritive reference is found it should stay since there are a number of web sites that make this connection (although they may be derived from the same erroneous source). Garglebutt / (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

History Australia makes the following comments about the name:


 * The quote is from Frederick Watson’s book, The History of Canberra. The name, Canberra, was the name given to JJ Moore’s property at Acton and the Aboriginal name of the land - meaning Meeting Place.  It is somewhat ironical that no marker is placed at Acton to mark the site of Moore’s property - first European to settle the district and name given to the National Capital.

and


 * The name of the property was Canberry - taken from the Ngunawal name for the area - Kambera. Both gave their name to the national city.

Slightly different explanation again! Garglebutt / (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I sent a query to ACT Planning to see if they could shed some light:


 * '' 'Canberra' was an Aboriginal word for 'meeting place'. Dr Lhotsky in 1834 called the area 'Kembery Plain' after he apparently heard the Aborigines call the Molonglo River, 'Kemberry River'.  Surveyors Dixon and Hoddle used 'Canberry' and 'Canbury' to describe this area.  (Refs:  Lyall Gillespie, 1992, "Ginninderra - Forerunner to Canberra - A History of the Ginninderra District"; John Gale, 1927, "Canberra - Its History and Legends".
 * Lorraine Bayliss
 * ACT Place Names Officer

Looks like we could have an article just on the ambiguous history of the name! Garglebutt / (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

There is a plaque on a bridge across Sullivans Creek at ANU that explains the Canberry origin- thats the first place that I read it, this government fact sheet says the same thing.--nixie 22:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I happened to be going over there anyway just after I saw your comment here on Tuesday morning - just for the record the plaque on the bridge says that "In the early days the area which is now Canberra was generally known as Canberry or Canburry - The name is said to be derived from an Aboriginal word for "meeting place". Cfitzart 11:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * And that suppports the quote above, Canberra, was the name given to JJ Moore’s property at Acton. Garglebutt / (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I read the women's breasts explanation years ago in a very old, very thick book. I think it was an Australian Encyclopaedia, but am not sure. Unfortunatly I don't still have access to this book. Martyman 23:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I have a copy of the Australian Encyclopaedia published by The Grolier Society, 3rd edition 1977, revised 1979. Page 457 of volume 1 includes the comment: "The meaning of the name is uncertain, but the view that it refers to a woman's breasts is given some plausibility by the outlines of Mount Ainslie and Black Mountain."  I htink as I have already stated, it needs a stretch to interpret the topography that way, suggesting that that is the word derivation is a put down to the Ngunnawal people, it would seem we have moved on from there. This is a secondary source and is not speaking with certainty.  I do not believe the word derivation is given any weight these days.--User:AYArktos |  Talk 00:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I still maintain that it is not a stretch of the topography. Remember that in the pre-European landscape the Sullivans Creek Plain would have been a largely or completely treeless plain (with the exception of trees possibly lining the actual creek) framed on either side by the dark, forested Black Mountain and Mount Ainslie.  Back then the "Nganbra" effect would have been quite pronounced.  Now the effect is obscured by planted exotic forests, grassed earthworks, bridges, freeways, the ANU and its particle acceleration tower, etc.  Please, show some imagination and appreciate how the Sullivans Creek Plain would have looked in 1788.  Codman 08:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Looking at Canberra in Google Earth suggests it was a fairly flat chested woman. 8') Garglebutt / (talk) 01:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that a) you have to be looking at in person, not from a satellite and b) be aware of how the landscape has changed since the Ngunnawal coined this name. See above.  Codman 08:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I think we should stick with the Kanberry/Canberry entomology for this article since it appears to be the most common naming recollection, complexities could be discussed (and would make an intersting addition to) in the History of Canberra article.--nixie 01:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree in that the relationship to the English name is probably because the local aboriginal name sounded familiar. I am troubled by the use of Nganbirra though as that doesn't really fit most of the examples. Is this the derived spelling of the word as compared to the pronunciation? Garglebutt / (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with this issue as I have encountered it with other aboriginal names, mainly for wildlife. The fact is that every European explorer/settler "heard" the aboriginal names slightly differently and spelt them slightly differently.  As aboriginal languages were not written languages in some ways it can be argued there is no "correct" spelling, only the most widely accepted spelling.  The varying spellings of "Canberra" and indeed the varying stories on its origin are a great example of this.

Codman 08:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes I think Kambera might be a better word given some of the links and quotes put here, just changed it. Cfitzart 10:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

More on the origin of the name Canberra from a Canberra resident who had read up on the issue
Unfortunately folks I can't remember the various references in which I have read that "Canberra" comes from "Nganbra" or "Ngabra" and WAS a reference to the Sullivan's Creek plain (a tributary of the Molonglo river) and did mean "hollow between a woman's breasts".

And I'm sorry, but if you've ever been to Canberra you will see that the topography DOES match, and that (now heavily developed) Sullivan's Creek plain, Black Mountain and Mount Ainslie does match the quite poetic and beautiful aboriginal description.

I'm impressed with the amount of support people have come up with for this explanation. So could whoever removed the "hollow between a woman's breast" PLEASE PUT IT BACK.

I must emphasise again that the claimed meaning of "meeting place" is dubious. Canberra also is NOT the word for the Molonglo River, as I have an extract from one of the first expeditions through the Canberra plains and the name of the Molonglo was clearly recorded as "Yeal-am-Bidgee".

Uriarra is a place on the Murrumbidgee River close to the foothills of the Brindabella Range (suggested in one reference I have as originally being an aboriginal name "Berindabella") that the aboriginals assembled when word spread that the Bogong Moths were on. Uriarra apparently means "come running" because when word spread that the Bogong Moths were on the aboriginals of the region "came running" to Uriarra (to then head up into the mountains to collect them).

So as Uriarra actually appeared to be the meeting place for tribes of the region, and as the Molonglo River was called "Yeal-am-Bidgee" the meeting place explanation looks shaky while the "hollow between... etc" explanation looks more credible.

References: from various sources including but not limited to 19th century editions of the Queanbeyan age, and the books "Cotter Country" and "T.A.Murray" (an influential early settler and explorer of the Canberra region). Codman 01:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Am a lifelong resident of Canberra and as a woman I think the statement about women's breasts is absolute garbage, sexist and racist. However, I think that user Cfitzart has a good job of incorporating the statement on the History of Canberra article where discussion of the name was deemed ot belong--User:AYArktos |  Talk 00:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think your claim that the possible meaning of Canberra is sexist and racist is absolute garbage. If you have problem with this name, go back in a time machine and accost the indigenous people who coined it. There's quite good evidence that this is indeed what the name "Canberra" originated from.  I find it sad that you are unable to appreciate a name that was quite simple and quite poetic. 11:47, 22 September 2005 Codman

"Kembera", "Kembery" etc WERE NOT names for the Molonglo River
From the Australian Bureau of Statistics Year Book, 1931 Special Article - Canberra Past and Present.

This source reprints extracts from Charles Throsby's journal detailing the exploration of the Molonglo River through the Canberra Plains on the 7th and 8th of December 1820 and mentions that a marginal note on these pages in Throsby's original journal states "This river or stream is called by the natives "Yeal-am-bid-gie..."

So Kembera, Kembery are not names for the Molonglo River, and Uriarra or "come running" appeared to be the meeting place. So the Sullivans Creek Plain/Black Mountain/Mount Ainslie explanation looks good if we can overcome our prudishness about an innocent mention of breasts. Codman 08:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Ngunnawal language today?
Just responding to Codmans comment further above, thought it deserved its own section. I think people are treating Ngunnawal as though it is a dead language, when Im not sure if thats the case. See for instance here - google searched for "ngunnawal elder" and there seems to be modern references. I think this is important to find out in discussing the aboriginal word for Canberra - Are there Ngunnawal speakers around today? Cfitzart 10:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that there are no full-blood Ngunnawal people left, and few people of Ngunnawal background at all left. It's also my understanding that the Ngunnawal language has died out apart from a few words here and there recorded by early explorers and settlers.  As I think someone else pointed out, European diseases and particularly smallpox hit them very hard.  This is probably why it is hard to get down to the bottom of what "Canberra" originally meant.  Codman 10:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thats what I thought at first too, but see here for instance "The name, contributed by Ngunawal/Ngunnawal elder Matilda House, means 'pathways for searching' in the language of the original inhabitants of the region where the (National) Library is located." Cfitzart 11:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Interesting, but that's just an indication that a few scattered words have survived, not the whole language.Codman 12:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Have been doing some more research and found some other words which I put in Ngunnawal people Cfitzart 12:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Here is an online version of the source where I got the name Yeal-am-Bidgee from: http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/4e782ee652d0db0aca2569de001fb2dd?OpenDocument - open it and search for "Yeal-am-bid-gie" or "Throsby". As Yeal-am-bidgee is clearly, reliably recorded as the name for the Molonglo River it casts serious doubt on the claim that Kemberra/Kemberry/etc. was a name for the Molonglo River. As I have said before, for this and other reasons I think the alternative explanation of "Nganbra", being the name for the plain between Mt Ainslie and Black Mountain (views of which were not obscured by heavy development back then), and meaning "hollow between a woman's breasts" becomes very plausible. And I must say, I reject any sad, prudish arguments that this name is sexist or racist. It is an "innocent" name and I find it quite poetic and beautiful. I must also point out that there is an interesting pattern of the suffix "bidgee" being used for names of rivers of the Canberra region. We have the "Murrumbidgee" and "Goodradigbee" (which almost certainly has had its letters transposed and was originally "Goodrabidgee"); that the Molonglo followed this trend and was called Yeal-am-bigee makes sense. I'm sure the Cotter and Queanbeyan Rivers followed this trend but sadly I've never come across any records of the aboriginal names for them. Codman 23:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually I could see how they would think that with Mount Majura and Mount Ainslie. Is it possible that people have said Black mountain because black mountain is the most well known mountain in Canberra and Mt. Majura is not as well known? Cfitzart 00:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Quite possible. As I've alluded to in other posts, things often got mixed up when the explorers noted these things down.  I've only ever heard Black Mountain and Mount Ainslie mentioned, but it could have been Mount Ainslie and Mount Majura.  I still think the "Nganbra" explanation should be present in the "Canberra" article as well as the "History of Canberra" article.  Codman 01:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Footnotes/References
Would anyone mind if I convereted the notes section over to a references section and changed it to using Footnote3 which seems to have become the defacto standard and has replaced Footnote4 which is currently being used in the article. I think references are one thing that still needs quite a bit of work before this is at FAC standard. Martyman 04:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * There really is no practial difference between the systems, everything has to be manually numbered using both systems. Unless the templates for 4 are going to be deleted then there probably is no need to switch them- but since you're offering go ahead.--nixie 04:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No, the Footnote3 system doesn't need to be manually numbered unless you need to reference the one footnote more than once. It is important that references are kept in the correct order though. Unless someone objects I will go through and change this over when I get some spare time. Martyman 06:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I have used some notes more than once, thats why I originally used fn4.--nixie 11:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The Australia Wikiportal
In the absence of suggestions for anything other, I've selected Canberra as the next feature of The Australia Wikiportal. However, I haven't been able to settle on an image that best represents the city. The one I aiming tending towards is Image:NewParliamentHouseInCanberra.jpg, as it displays well as a thumbnail. Do any of the Canberra editors have a better suggestion?--Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Geology Section
I have had an attempt at writing a Geology section to slot into the Geography section of the article. As I know very little about Geology I thought I would post it here instead of directly into the article, in the hope someone more knowlegable might pick up my errors. Martyman 23:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Geology
Notable geological formations in the Canberra region include the Canberra Formation, the Pittman Formation, Black Mountain Sandstone and State Circle Shale.

In the 1840s fossils of brachiopods and trilobites from the Silurian period where discovered at Woolshed Creek near Duntroon. At the time these where the oldest fossils discovered in Australia, though this record has now been far surpassed. 

The oldest rocks in the Canberra region date from the Ordovician around 480 Million Years Ago. During this period the Canberra region along with most of Eastern Australia was part of the ocean floor; formations from this period include the Black Mountain Sandstone formation and the Pittman Formation consisting largely of Quartz-rich sandstone, siltstone and shale. These formations became exposed when the ocean floor was raised by a major volcanic activity in the Devonian forming much of the East coast of Australia.


 * I clarified some of the last paragraph. Adding a section like this came up in peer review, I think that it would be better in the ACT article since it introduces a lot of information that isn't directly relevant to the city, and it could be used in the Terrioty article as a base to build flora and fauna sections. What do other people think? --nixie 00:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I tried to make it a very basic section that wouldn't hurt even if it is duplicated, in more detailed form in the ACT article. It could have a see main article link, to the relavent ACT article section. The ACT article could include a lot more information including the local fualt lines, other places of interest (state circle cuttings, Deakin incline, etc.), mountain ranges and other significant formations. Martyman 00:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with nixie that it should go in the ACT article since it is about the Canberra 'region'.. the Canberra article is already over the suggested file size, and one of the featured article criteria is "appropriate length" Cfitzart 05:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Unique
The article says that Canberra is unique in Australia as a planned, purpose-built city. Some of the mining towns in Western Australia would seem to also fit this description, with populations comparable to Canberra's up until the 1960s.


 * I would argue that many cities were 'purpose-build' - or at the very leastm 'purpose-planned'. Adelaide was a planned city, with the grid plan laid out before settlement and construction. The grid pattern plans for Melbourne and Brisbane were also intentionally designed. The 'purpose' of all of these cities was for them to be collonial settlements and centres of administration. ... It is unusual in the international context in that it is a capital city which was planned with the intention of being the capital after the nation was founded (as opposed to a city which sprung up and somewhere along the line became a capital) - similar to Brasilia, New Delhi and Washington DC, but it isn't unique, either in the Australian context in which it has been described, or the international context. Adz 02:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I think its a bit of a stretch to call Brisbane (I'm not sure about Melbourne) planned anywhere beyond the grid of the CBD, Canberra certainly is unique in the fact that everything is planned within the city. You've also got to consider that Canberra probably woldn't exist at all if someone hasn't said "let's build the capital there", unlike Brisbane, Sydney or any mining town you choose to mention which were all chosen for obvious reasons.--nixie 02:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Canberra isn't unique. Brasilia is just as much a planned city. Canberra's location is as much a factor of geography as any mining town's - it had to be in New South Wales, a minimum distance away from Sydney, a minimum distance away from the coast, and given that most parliamentarians would be travelling by rail through either Sydney or Melbourne, for practical reasons it had to be close to the railway linking the two cities.

Various company mining towns were virtually built out of bare desert postwar. Everything about them was planned before the first sod was turned. Canberra is a lovely city, planned to within an inch of its life, but it's hardly unique in anything beyond being the capital city of Australia.


 * Mining towns were never planned to be cities, let alone capitals. Most are temporary in design. However, unique is disputable. It may be justified on the grounds that nixie has suggested: the enitre thing is planned and purpose-built, and progress continues according to the plan - contingencies are inbuilt. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 08:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the only thing unique about Canberra is that no other city in Australia was built from scratch with the intention of being the Nation's Capital - and perhaps that is what the article should say. Instead, it currently says that it is unusual among the capitals in that it is an entirely purpose built planned city. I would argue that all the colonial settlements were purpose built (although in some cases, the purpose was slightly different). Adelaide was definitely a planned city, and it was intended to be the capital of the colony (see Light's Vision and the history section of Adelaide. Furthermore, at the time of its planning/settlement, it was reasonable to expect that it would develop into a city of reasonable size. Adelaide is perhaps the best 'other' example in Australia, but Melbourne also fits the bill (except that at the time of its settlement, it was part of NSW). It should also be remembered that Griffin's original plan for Canberra was a city of 25,000 or 30,000 people, and that the plan has been adapted many times in order to accommodate the current population. Granted - Canberra is a planned city (as opposed to a planned town or mining settlement) and it was purpose built with the intention of being the National Capital, but I think the latter criteria is the only one that makes it unique - and only in an Australian context. Perhaps we should say that Canberra is 'special' because it was purpose built to be the National Capital, or that it is special because it was founded as a result of Federation and a compromise between States. As it is currently worded, I still don't think that the article is accurate. Adz 09:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I think Melbourne can be discounted as planned city: it has been fiddled with far too many times. The City of Adelaide has stuck to its plan through and through - even the incursions into the North Parklands are allowable to a certain extent in Light's Vision. I agree it should be reworded, but can't - at this stage - make any suggestions. I know in the lead there is reference to Canberra's distance from Melbourne and Sydney, and the relevance of this isn't really explained. Perhaps it would be best - as Adz was suggesting - to discuss this over any uniqueness Canberra can claim to possess (or, in fact, that this is the root of its uniqueness).--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Tallest Mountain
I've changed tallest mountain = Mt Ainslie to Mt Taylor. Not sure if it's right, but Taylor has several metres over Ainslie according to the maps I can find. If you've got a more accurate map (topographical or aviation for example), please update. Psud 03:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Just changed it to Mt Majura, which I found out is even taller at 888m Cfitzart 09:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Please tell me you found the height of the mountain from a source more reliable than a UBD or Gregorys map? I don't doubt that Mt Majura is taller than Tayor, but I'd like to know where you got that (particularly neat looking) number from. Psud 13:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I think some things just work out to be neat looking numbers - its on this act government document and gets some other google hits Cfitzart 14:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest most maps have this info, the NRMA one I'm looking has these over 800m: Mt Majura 888m, Mt Taylor 856m, Mt Ainslie 843m, Mt Mugga Mugga 813m, Black Mountain 812m, Mt Wanniassa 810m, Tuggeranong Hill 805m.--Paul 15:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

ACTs or ACT's??
What's with the current reversions of ACT's to ACTs? which is the correct possesive form? --Martyman- (talk) 00:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * ACT's is the only correct possessive form. ACTs is the plural form (which would never be used as there is only 1 ACT).  A lot of people, including (shock! horror!) Wikipedia editors, confuse possessives with plurals.  JackofOz 00:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * the edits by admins are about reverting edits done by a banned user, however, I believe the correct form is the one with the apostrophe--User:AYArktos | Talk 00:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It is a shame that in order to make a stand against editing while banned even useful edits are reverted. If only everyone could just learn to play nice... --Martyman- (talk) 01:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation Guide
The pronunciaiton guides should probably IPA to satisfy Ambi's objection. See Template_talk:IPA, I am not too sure how to correctly implement this myself. --Martyman- (talk) 03:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Someone removed the template a while ago (I have no idea why, and I use firefox so it still looks fine to me), I'll see if I can find an old version and fix it.--nixie 03:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)