Talk:Launceston, Tasmania/Archive 1

earlier comments (check the dates)
''Launceston was the home of John Bateman, the founder of Melbourne. Bateman planned the city and in 1834 he sailed from Launceston to settle at Port Phillip in Victoria. '' - I'm assuming that in the above passage, "the city" refers to Melbourne, but I'm not sure. RickK 05:08 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, Melbourne - I used "The city" to avoid saying "Melbourne" too much in the one sentence. I'll try and re-phrase it some other way! Chuq 07:08 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Launceston City Flag
This entry needs a copy of the Launceston City Flag Lauchlin 13:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn’t even know there was such a flag. <-- who wrote this?

There is. It is yellow with a blue 'Y' on it showing the meeting of the two Esk rivers to form the Tamar, as can be seen on the coat of arms. I'll try and take a photo of it next time I am in the city. -Lauchlin

This page needs a vector image of the city flag. It's a pretty standard thing to showcase city flags on wikipedia articles! Does anyone have the required skills? -User:Delapeople —Preceding undated comment added 07:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC).

I went to the Launceston Council, and asked for one. They said it was copyrighted and they couldn't give me a file, and that it can only be flown by the Launceston Government (and is only flown in 4 places; City Hall, The Mall, The Museum and Home Point). So a No on that vector file :/ Stelith61 (talk) 04:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Inveresk precinct?
Regarding this edit: This precinct, near Royal Park, hosts the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery (the largest museum and art gallery in Australia located outside a capital city), Chinese Temple, Railway Workshops and a Planetarium.

AFAIK, the inveresk precinct holds the art gallery part of the museum, and railway workshops, and is not near Royal Park. The rest of the QV Museum and the planetarium are near Royal Park. -- Chuq 03:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Are there no other wikipedians from my own home city?? Shame on you all!! All joking aside, I have corrected the factual inaccuracies of this section - and added a bit about the lovely old (original) museum building in the "landmarks" section. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Soundofmusicals, I am from Launceston but live in Hobart now. There are a group of us on WikiProject Tasmania from the state, though the WikiProject page itself is very quiet it is a handy guide as to what has been done and what needs to be done.  Australian Wikipedians' notice board is a more active area for general discussion about Aussie articles.  By the way, I didn't think the AMC had merged with the Uni - although there were talks of it I didn't think it was definite? -- Chuq (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Happened very recently - but is quite definite - they have new UT signs up everywhere out there now - although we heard about it from contacts with AMC students. I was joking about the fact that the messup over the QVM had remained uncorrected for at least two years - I am just as "responsible" for this oversight as anyone else, of course. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm also from Launceston.  Aaroncrick  ( Tassie Talk ) 22:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Small City ?? Opening Para
The opening para is very confusing about the size of Launceston. At one point it uses the term "small" to describe the city, and in another sentence it mentions that it is the second largest. In some sections it compares it with towns and in others it is definately classed as a city.

I really don't see the point of the word small. It is either a city or not. The population is over 100,000 and articles like Ballarat, Toowoomba and Geelong which have comparable populations do not use the word "small" in their opening paragraphs. Anyone object to me removing it ? --Biatch 01:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds fair to me. The confusion may have come from the fact that there is a big gap between Australia's "big five" cities, and the rest. -- Chuq 05:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Flood levees
It would be good to include info about the flood levee system. There is some information at http://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/lc/dean/flood.htm -- Barrylb 07:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have added a few really negative (but TRUE) remarks about the effects of our topography - not just the potential for flooding in Inveresk and Invermay but also our notorious winter air pollution and the tendency for some houses in steeper parts of the city to have problems with landslip. I don't claim that this bit is necessarily 100% right just yet - and I'll have the "reference everything brigade" after me too, but these things have to be said if the article is to be an honest encyclopedia article and not a tourist brochure! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Just thought I would point out that I added a reference yesterday about the smog levels - but it's from the Mercury (Hobart) - not sure how reliable they can be when talking negatively about Launceston ;) -- Chuq (talk) 23:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC) -


 * Perhaps more objective than the Examiner??? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that the topographic of area catches smoke/smog from other places as well as Launceston and the way it is just does'nt allow it to escape, after all launceston is surrounded by hills, so it's like a bowl, when the victorian bushfires were going on we managed to trap a lot of that smoke aswell, that we were not the cause of, but this is just my opinion, i also have no references. --Stony (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes - we've got the same problem as a number of places in sharp valleys - it's got a technical name - can't think of it offhand - something to do with "inversion"?? - in fact the current article text actually mentions this - viz. "The topography of the area, and of the Tamar Valley generally are not conducive to the easy dispersion of airborne pollution"--Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's called a "thermal inversion" (looked it up as I should have done in the first place. It's quite common. Will modify note slightly and add wikilink!--Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Silverdome (Launceston) and Country Club Resort probably deserve mention as a notable feature of Launceston. Barrylb (talk) 08:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the flood levees, it's noted they will be completed by 2009. Now this is either 9 years out-of-date or a typo for 2019. Can someone check the facts please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:101D:BD00:856F:BC1E:EFE4:E7CA (talk) 08:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Phonetic alphabet and pronunciation of "Lonny"
One little thing I would love to fix but my knowledge of the phonetic alphabet isn't up to it. Most Australians pronounce the first vowel in our city's name as the vowel in "lawn" or "born" (a long vowel) - whereas the correct local pronunciation is the much shorter vowel as it "hot or "gone" (or even "lonny" - what most Tasmanian Launcestonians call it most of the time). It would be cute to have both at the head of the article - pointing out which is correct!! Anyone up to doing that in the offical IPA???--Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think I've done it!!! It's all a question of vowel length - and I think just adding the "long vowel" symbol does the trick!. By all means correct me if I'm wrong!!--Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The locals myself being one of, pronounce it as though it was lon rather than lawn -Stony (talk) 08:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's exactly what I meant - all I was confused about was how to write this in IPA. I think I actually got the phonetics right too, now! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You did! MarcusCole12 (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the 'mainland' Australians pronounce it 'Lawn' as that's how the original Launceston in Cornwall, England is pronounced - lawn-ston. Just a guess. 86.147.163.85 (talk) 09:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually the usual English pronunciation is "Lonstin" or "Lunstin" (no "sess" at all, and a very short, almost indefinite first vowel), although "Lawnstin" is no doubt heard from the ignorant. The point is that almost no one who lives here drawls out that first vowel to "Lawn", as even other Tasmanians, much more mainlanders, have been known to do (although the "sess" crept back in the name of the Australian city long ago). There are several other Australian (and overseas) city names that are mispronounced by outsiders (Cairns?). I am assuming that the way actual residents pronounce the name of their hometown is, prima facie at least, the correct way? But spelling has a way of winning in the long run. The English way of pronouncing "Hobart" for instance, and what early settlers and convicts must have called it, is "Hubbid". There is evidence (the scanning of early convict songs for example) that "Hobart Town" was initially pronouced "Hubton", or perhaps even "'ubtin", at least by convicts! Maybe the "big city over the water" will eventually change its (spoken) name from "Melbin" to "Melborrrrrrrrrn" a la septic tank brigade?? I hope not, but... --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * So, does this mean that the correct pronunciation of Towcester is "Toaster"? Also I am not from your lovely country but I can confirm from much travels that everyone in Tasmania pronounces Launceston with a short "o" sound, and if they don't then they are from somewhere else.  Most people in Melbourne and southern Victoria say it with a short "o" also.  Only when you head more far north that you might find people saying it differently, or maybe to the western states.  Nobody says it the English way.  Also if you pronounce it the German way, it would have the sound of "ow" like in "clown", making it sound like "Lownceston". The English custom of dropping entire syllables and changing how things are said for no good reason needs to be stamped out. This language is confusing enough already!  หมีขั้วโลก (talk) 05:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I remember Launceston before it was called "Lonny" - that cringeworthy title was started by a 7EX radio announcer in the mid-1970's. I think he wasn't even a Tasmanian! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.68.54 (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Discrepancy between written IPA and spoken versions
Is the second syllable a secondarily stressed "ses" /sɛs/ or an unstressed "sus" /səs/? The schwa /ə/ appears in both the "right" and "wrong" transcriptions, but I hear /ɛ/ in the second syllable of both audio files. 108.246.206.139 (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Then you should have your ears checked. --2001:16B8:2E31:A100:3453:FB75:C9DB:9824 (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

History
I've noticed over the last few months that everyone has an opinion on the establishment date of Launceston, so i did some research and came up with the following link on the councils webpage I figure we should agree upon a date rather than change it to suit what we believe to be correct at the time. &mdash; Stony (talk) 12:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, we need a properly refernced date!! It seems the site was surveyed and explored during 1805 - and a "blockhouse" was constructed during that year - the convicts and their guards however did not abandon the York Town site (NOT George Town - as currently stated) and move to "Patersonia" (first name for the Launceston settlement) until 1806. Which does not infact altogether contrdict the view of the person who wrote the bit on the council's website - the wording is actually ambiguous, isn't it?


 * For what it is worth, the Launceston centenary was celebrated in 1906 - and there are several plaques about town (including the one on the old post office) that mention the 1806 date, or at least that 1906 was the centenary. The bi-centenary was so very low key most people may have missed it - in the current context it would have been insensitive to the original owners of the land to have made too much of it.


 * I agree that web information about Lonny is shockingly inconsistent - population, for instance, goes all the way from "about 50,000 to about 100,000" (thank goodness for the census so we can be exact and authoritative!!). I am really missing a rare book with a title something like "Launceston, an Australian City" that I think I have somewhere about the house and would be better as an authority than a dozy website. In the meantime my authority is probably the post office plaque - itself now over a hundred years old! Incidentally I am preparing a brief chronology of dates in Lonnie's history to replace the current history section - I'll probably pop into the local history room of the Library to finish this and build some proper referencing before I actually post this. We might as well get it right first pop!! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Come to think of we did have a thing about the bi-centenary in 2006 it was a year long event rather than a big bash. I agree with researching from the library surely that's a trusted and accurate source of information. &mdash; Stony (talk) 05:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "...in the current context it would have been insensitive to the original owners of the land to have made too much of it." (originally posted by Soundofmusicals). Aren't they all dead?  Every discussion of indigenous Tasmanians leads to the mention of 100% genocide, and that the last one died out more than 100 years ago.  So who is left to be offended? It seems more offensive to deny the local people their heritage and culture in order to show respect to a long-dead indigenous group when very few modern inhabitants would have ancestors who participated in the genocide and even those who do have them probably are not aware of the fact. I don't mean to be insensitive, but the fact is one group is dead, the other is alive, and you guys need to stop feeling guilty about something you didn't have a hand in. หมีขั้วโลก (talk) 05:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I have replaced "history" section with a little timeline style synopsis up to declaration as a city in 1889. I was waiting until I had a chance to reference this properly - but in the end I decided it was best to stick it in anyway rather than wait about until I find the "time" - after all anyone with access to the Local History Room at the Launceston library could stick a few suitable refs in as well as I?? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's looking good, I wonder how long before people start with unreferenced material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stonyisalegend (talk • contribs) 10:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Leave Launceston development alone!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.131.110 (talk • contribs) 22:55, July 17, 2008

Development
This mainly goes out to the user from ip address 58.6.131.110, not every piece of development needs to be included in the list.

I propose that we only include major developments anything greater than $10 Million.

When you add an item please add a reference to it, this way people can't argue over the facts.

I also think we should remove any non referenced items, unless you want to find a reference to it. Stony (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's certainly getting a bit silly - wipe away all you like - just imagine if every other city mentioned in Wiki had this kind of info - makes us look like right wankers!! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with Stony, Wikipedia is not everything, and not an ad or list of developments. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have cut the list to something much more sensible - but I still think the whole thing is unencyclopediac. Sorry, Aaroncrick, that I somehow offended you - but a long list of non-notable "gee - we've got a new milkbar" stuff in an article about a city - far from boosting our image, makes us look like hayseeds or hicks or even (what I said before) - more pertinently, it is against Wiki policy - as it it is most definitely NOT "notable". This is the sense in which I used a colloquialism that I should perhaps have avoided.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Climate
Update "he highest recorded temperature in Launceston was 37.3°C at Launceston Airport on 28 January 1943" temperature's of 40°C where recorded on the 30th of Jan 2009?? (Wildinc (talk) 06:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC))

why does Launceston climate keep getting deleted.


 * because it's a violation of copyright WP:COPYVIO. you cannot directly copy wording from copyrighted sites into Wikipedia. Michellecrisp (talk) 07:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you confused or something? Because I didn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.131.110 (talk) 06:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Could Topographical problems come under Climate rather than have it's own section? Stony (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel that Topographical problems section should be removed since it's largly unsourced and the smog issue is about 2 years old and the source doesn't state on what the content states plus it would be out of date since a lot can change in a year or two. Bidgee (talk) 09:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you think this bit needs to be better sourced then get the sources and put them in. Anyone who has visited Launceston with their eyes open (much less lived here) knows that these factors are not imaginary. They are certainly (unlike a lot of other stuff in the article) relevant to an encyclopedia article, as opposed to a tourist beaureau "plug". A lot "could" change in a year or so, but (alas) the problem of smog has been there since the year dot and is if anything getting worse every year. And topography is topography - you can't substabtially change that!! Facts before speculation, please. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats what the content is ATM just speculation. It's unsourced claims (and a source that does state that Launceston smog issues but doesn't state the cause and is now out of date) and original research which do not belong on the article nor Wikipedia. Bidgee (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * NOT speculation - at least not to us who live with it!! I referred to your speculation that the smog might have improved!!!
 * By all means improve the article by finding more and better references of course - or put in a notice if you can't find one - but don't wipe important information unless you have a real informed doubt about its accuracy. Having said that, I agree we should put better sources here (and elsewhere in Wiki - there are many thousands of artices worse "cited" than this one). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Again I'll point out that you're in breach of no original research. Yes it's accuracy is rather doubtful since it only made the news for 1 day in 2006 and nothing since. Unsourced and poorly sourced content can be removed which is what I did since it doesn't belong in the article. Bidgee (talk) 10:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is an ongoing state - not news. A newspaper article is probably not the best source for that sort of thing. Fortunately your vandalism does not permanently remove this - it will still be there to be restored when someone has found better references - please leave it alone then. Far far more important than you or I being "right" is Wikipedia being a good encyclopedia. Please change your whole approach to take account of this - or you are a liability rather than a benefit to this whole project. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop assuming bad faith! I'm not a vandal nor am I a liability. If this is an on going issue then pointout some reliable sources which fit on wants said within the article. No source means it has no place being within the article. Bidgee (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In your case good faith has been assumed well past the point where this was possible. Improving the quality of an article is the ONLY legitimate reason for editing anything, doing so with another motive can never be considered "good faith". In case you haven't noticed you have "won" for the moment, in that your last attack has not been reverted - I only ask that when the information returns with better sourcing (note that I have never disputed that in this case sourcing was poor - as it is in other places in this article and in many many other articles in Wiki!) you do not rush to find some egotistical reason to wipe it yet again. The action of an "asset" would have been, as I initialy suggested, to have looked for a source or two for yourself. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to chime in here... having lived in Tasmania for 30 years I can attest that while Launceston's smog issue is ongoing and well known, and should be included, I don't think it deserves a whole section in the article. I'm sure additional refs can be found apart from that "one ref from two years ago". -- Chuq (talk) 13:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To be fair - a brief mention, with the simplest of explanations, was really all it ever had.  Will you visit the library for this one or must I? Someone has obviously got a silly bee in his bonnet over this one - restoring the section (or "more or less" restoring it) with better sources is the only final answer to this particular species of vandalism, I suppose. But I fear the article could be more citation than text and he'd still want to wipe anything he didn't already know. Interestingly - he insists on wiping the bit about Launceston's rather odd combination of steep hillside and low lying swamp along with the smog. I am surprised that this could be the basis for dispute, almost like asking for a source for a statement like "Tasmania is an island". Any contour map of the area would surely do for a "reference" here! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Classing me as a vandal is not helping the project nor yourself. Thats is your problem if you fear that the article will be come "citation". Better sourced then claims which can't be proven. Bidgee (talk) 04:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are you deleting valuable information out of the climate section saying it the source doesn't say what i added? I does! You seem to be too busy deleting stuff. Aaroncrick (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, valuable information is well sourced infromation. The new source does not state any of "Over the past few years Launceston has been the warmest town or city in Tasmania." and "Febuary that year, had an average temperature of 27.3°C. The warmest month in Launceston on record." which means it's your own original research. I know Meteorology and the Bureau of Meteorology and dislike seeing it miss quoted. You've been warned about sourcing properly and you haven't done so. Bidgee (talk) 04:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear debate teams, I love the vigor with which you are all pushing your points of view, however as an outsider I can say that readers find it more useful to know the truth about a place rather than the tourist version. In fact they will come to an encyclopedia like this to seek clarification or an alternative view to the touristy information they are fed, to make sure they know the real facts.

For example, I am being paid right at this moment to write a touristy article about Turkey, where I am not allowed to say anything negative. But the truth is that there have been recent terrorist attacks and there is frequent seismic activity there. It is only fair that people have full disclosure on which to base their travel decisions and only an encylopedia provides that (when it's done properly).

An encyclopedia that discards relevant information because it is unsourced or comes from a media source is failing in its duty to present as much information as possible. If the information is uncertain or not completely reliable, then it should be worded in such a way. Often day-to-day information isn't available from scholarly sources until a long time after it has happened.

I have been to Launceston, and I can say that while the air quality compared with Bangkok, Medan, Kuala Lumpur, Dehli, or Cairo you have something to crow about, you certainly don't when compared with Devonport, Swansea, or Hobart.

For reliable information, you should try sourcing from places like the World Heath Organisation and the Environmental Protection Agency (which although is a US govt agency, does evaluate air quality in different cities around the world). There has to be reliable reports about all this somewhere. Especially now, 8 years later. หมีขั้วโลก (talk) 05:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

How to improve
How can we improve the Launceston article? Aaroncrick (talk) 10:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * One way would be to improve the footnotes and citations! If you live in Lonnie - what about a trip to the reference section of the library with a printout of the article. Grab a librarian and ask her/him to help you find a book/magazine or two on some of the subjects covered here - especially ones people have been complaining about as "uncited".


 * Bear in mind that this IS an encyclopedia article - so while we don't want any untrue or hurtful things in it - we do need to be honest and state the bad with the good. Nor do we want to fill it with a lot of topical or "rather unimportant" stuff - just making the article longer won't necessarily make it better.


 * Finally - don't copy stuff out of a book or off another site. Read the source - then close it, and write your own notes. Otherwise you may be breaching copyright. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Third oldest City?????
This is a very common claim - and can be found on many websites. Alas this doesn't make it true!

Of "settlements now cities by date of first settlement" Launceston seems to be FOURTH after Sydney, Hobart and Newcastle. (Although this is debatable - as it excludes suburbs that are also cities in their own right!! - and anyway would need proper research - not just looking at tourist bureau type hype.)

Of "settlements by date of proclamation as cities" Launceston would be well down the list - as it was not a city until the 1880s - by which time a number of other, younger settlements (including Melbourne, for instance) had been cities for some years.

The note that it is "one of Australia's oldest cities" is indisputable - however the "oldest city" is defined - might I suggest that it remain as is???

P.S. this is an old topic - read the discussion further up this page.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think some definitions count Port Darymple (George Town) as the "settlement" date of Launceston, since the settlement was started there and later moved to Launceston, just to add to the confusion! -- Chuq (talk) 06:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Downgrading
How come it was rated B but now it's C? And the article is getting better!Aaroncrick (talk) 08:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is starting to become more like a list and needs a large clean up, reorganising and sourcing. Bidgee (talk) 08:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Started with the sourcing. What listed that doesn't need to be. Aaroncrick (talk) 08:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For a start History should be like Hobart, Wagga Wagga, New South Wales, Darwin, Northern Territory and not in it's current from which is a list. Bidgee (talk) 08:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

How are we going to do that? Aaroncrick (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree with the article downgrading. The article at the moment is a bit of a mess. As Bidgee said, it needs a massive cleanup and reorganise. Mvjs (talk) 10:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well lets start doing it then! Aaroncrick (talk) 10:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've removed 4 climate tables since it was rather untidy and not needed. If you want that data to be added then a new table needs to be made then adding more then one table. Bidgee (talk) 09:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with the C rating. Michellecrisp (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Should be B-Class now, shouldn't it? i believe it's a lot better than Hobart. Aaroncrick (talk) 07:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think Launceston is of B class yet. I made some suggestions for how the article could be improved and they have been seemingly ignored. As it stands, the article has way to many images and colourful tables. These detract from the prose of the article. There's also a way to go on referencing of statements. Pointing to the grading of another article is really irrelevant. Melbourne and Sydney are B class; is this article as good as them? Mvjs (talk) 07:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel that the article has been totally cleaned up and deserves B rating. As it provides lots of information. Being a small city there isn't much more that could be added. Aaroncrick (talk) 01:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the article still needs some work. The lime green tables are worse than before. They need no colour whatsoever. Just a plain grey table will suffice. It's not really a question of what needs to be added, rather what needs to be rearranged or taken out. I think you should consider requesting a peer review as the article would definitely benefit from it. Mvjs  Talking  02:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources also need some work done to them to show the publisher of each source. Bidgee (talk) 05:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also please address these concerns. Bidgee (talk) 05:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh right really sorry didn't see any reply, cheers. Aaroncrick (talk) 05:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Development section
I don't see the use of the development section. Listing every new apartment or office complex in the city doesn't seem very encyclopaedic to me. I call for it to me removed. Anyone share this opinion? Mvjs (talk) 08:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just realised that this has been discussed before. It seems like the result was to be shortened but it seems to have lengthened up again. I really don't think anything other than game changing development projects should be listed. Mvjs (talk) 08:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Cut it back a bit. There are no minor developments now listed. They are all referenced. Aaroncrick (talk) 08:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It really doesn't matter if it's referenced. Most city articles don't have this section. I'm strongly suggesting the deletion of this section consistent with other city articles. It's like it's some real estate report or WP:NOT. Michellecrisp (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree. Major public buildings like the aquatic centre and the hospital, possibly, but not hotels, carparks and office buildings.  An alternative section title might be ==Facilities== which could pick up existing major public infrastructure (like Aurora Stadium) and these could then fall into also.    Moondyne 01:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC) ==Geography and landmarks== seems an odd section name as there's not much in there that's geography related, and the ==Government== section also seems to have a fair bit that has nothing to do with Government.  Moondyne 01:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Events
Can anyone help upgrade the events section as it is a bit useless at the moment? I'm also thinking of deleting it, if it's not improved Aaroncrick (talk) 10:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Facilities
Should a facilities section be made? Aaroncrick (talk) 11:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup
Does the cleanup tag still need to be their. Aaroncrick (talk) 11:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it does. The article IMO needs some major work to it such as sourcing, rewording, removal of content thats not really encyclopedic ect but ATM I can't do that since my computer system is out of action and editing on the back-up system is slow and closes my editing window with large articles. Bidgee (talk) 11:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Bidgee. Aaroncrick suggest you look at some good articles of locations. Michellecrisp (talk) 11:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Tourism
I feel that the table below shouldn't be added since it doesn't add anything other then data and more tables to the article. This is an article about Launceston and not a Tourism Guide. Bidgee (talk) 07:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well it could be put into the article. 58.6.128.201 (talk) 08:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It's not relevant to the article and ever will be. Bidgee (talk) 09:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

We, the readers, want data and tables and lists. If you want to write University essays, go back to Uni. I came here to find population density data, and you don't have any. Your approach is too pedantic and tourism data could be useful to somebody who was considering starting a tourist-related business in the area, or for people who want to avoid tourists, etc. หมีขั้วโลก (talk) 06:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Architecture
A lot needs to be added otherwise it should be deleted Aaroncrick (talk) 12:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Smog
This has been removed before and was discussed above in the Climate section. The source used is out of date since it was published in 2006 when it's currently 2008 and the sources I've found read the very same thing (No doubt the media has copied a media release from the Government). Find some stuff thats been published in 2007 and 2008 before readding as it's just trivial to have in the article with one source (No point using other sources that state the same words) also parts of the content is not stated within the source added which is original research.

Content in question. Launceston's winter air pollution is not primarily caused by industrial smoke, but by the use of firewood to heat the majority of the city's homes, especially in the less affluent suburbs. At times, smoke from other sources, even bush fires in mainland Australia, have been concentrated in Launceston. Although during the past few years it's improved dramatically and is a lot safer than the pollution from major Australian cities. Bidgee (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the quote above is not supported by the source and should be removed—its original research. However, the source does say some interesting things which could be included in the article, like 'In recent years, Launceston has recorded the highest levels of particulate pollution of any city in the nation.' and 'The city has also recorded the highest levels of cancer-causing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.' and 'the State Government estimated that about eight people die each year because of Launceston's air pollution.'.  Moondyne 00:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions
My feeling is that this article has way to many images and unnecessary clutter. For example, there does not need to be a picture of Ricky Ponting in the notable people section. There's too many panorama laid photos, there should be one at the most. The tourism gallery unnecessarily breaks the article. I really don't think the suburb and sister cities tables need to be in colour. Plain black/grey table should be fine for the suburb one. I don't think the sister cities table is really warranted, a simple list like every other city has would suffice. There are some suggestions. Mvjs (talk) 07:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. The Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery pano is not needed (I'll rather a normal image then a panorama) and the pano can be seen in the QVMAG article anyway. Bidgee (talk) 07:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Why does sister cities not need to be in colour?? What difference does it make? Aaroncrick (talk) 08:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's just unnecessary colour and clutter. A simple list suffices. Mvjs (talk) 08:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Many WP readers are colour-blind. Plain wikitable class tables are always preferable unless you're trying to convey something specific by the use of coloured tables, and then it should be minimal.  The weather averages table is particularly bad and I'm sure many people would have difficulty with that.  See WP:COLOUR.  Moondyne 08:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Less clutter now. Aaroncrick (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Reference won't work in the climate section, anyone know why? Aaroncrick (talk) 22:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Mvjs  Talking  22:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the Launceston firsts comes and goes every now and then, usually due to being unverifiable so I've found this link for any future reference. firsts &mdash; Stony (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks i recently discovered that link on the new council page and was going to add it when i had time. Thanks for reminding me and discussing it. Aaroncrick (talk) 05:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite
I've started a re-write of some sections of the article. Does anyone have any idea's on what specific to improve? Aaroncrick (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyone know anything about the tallest building in Launceston? It might have to be removed. Aaroncrick (talk) 10:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's alright, i don't expect an answer until next Christmas. :( Aaroncrick (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To Anyone who eventually reads this; i have re organised the article and many of the sub sections now just need expanding. Aaroncrick (talk) 06:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Sorry I haven't been too responsive, am trying to get a heap of stuff done offline before the end of the month - I'll look at it later if reminded. :) My main Tasmanian involvement's been the elections and member lists. Orderinchaos 08:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep Good job, I don't edit as much as I should, however I would like to see the image of the Launceston flag reappear at some stage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stonyisalegend (talk • contribs) 09:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Look at that! Only took a few hours to reply! :O ; Yep will add it again within a week, when i expand that section. :) Aaroncrick (talk) 10:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I've combined architecture and urban structure as they don't have enough info for there own sections. Aaroncrick (talk) 11:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I just added about 20 refs. :)

To do
These are the sections i've identified need improving if the article is to get GA status.

The history section could also be slightly improved by it's sufficient for the time being.
 * Re-write Demographics section
 * Re-write Economy (I don't understand much about economies yet) section
 * Re-write Tourism section
 * Re-write Urban Structure and Architecture section
 * Re-write Governance section
 * Expand Education section

Table
Whats happened to the table it looks fine in the preview and then goes all weird when i save it. Can anyone help? Aaroncrick (talk) 08:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Local architecture
"Launceston is one of Australia's oldest cities and is home to the largest selection of nineteenth century buildings in Australia."

How is Launceston home to the largest selection of 19th century buildings in Australia? It is a small city / large town and I have been there. My local surrounding suburbs in the inner west of Sydney have far more buildings from that period - both in type and volume. What about the City of Sydney itself (LGA)? It has examples of Australian architecture from throughout the entire 19th century and plenty of it - far more than Launceston. What about Hobart? I can understand leaving Melbourne out, as it only existed from midway through that century.

How about changing to 'one of the largest selections of....' or 'one of the most intact selections of....'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.101.17 (talk) 02:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This fact is featured in this citation, for your information.  Mvjs  Talking  03:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You beat me to it. I was about to mention that. I've also read it on another website as well. Aaroncrick (talk) 03:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * be wary of tourist type websites - they are not reliable sources and very frequently a source of Factoids. I agree with the comments above.  This sort of claim needs to be more accurately cited. I also agree that "largest selection" is an incredibly loose definition ? --Biatch (talk) 08:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Record Temperatures
Thursday, 29th January was a record temperature of 36.9 for Launceston. Then on Friday, 30 January this record was broken, with at least 38.7. Does anyone know if two days over 35 is a record for Launceston? Or if today reaches 30 if four days in a row over 30 is a record?  Aaroncrick  ( Tassie Talk ) 22:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That would be interesting to know, but unfortunately I don't have the answer I would be interested to find out. Stony  ¿ 23:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've all of a sudden became interested in the weather :) It's already got to 31.3 at 12 o'clock today. So that makes it 4 days in a row over 30. I think Thursday nights 20.9 was also the highest minimum temperature ever recorded. (If you can make sense of that)

 Aaroncrick  ( Tassie Talk ) 01:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wednesday: 12.3 - 33.8
 * Thursday: 16.3 - 36.9
 * Friday: 20.9 - 39.0
 * Saturday: 19.6 -

Some IP has decided that Launceston has a Mediterranean climate? I don't think so. It's just a warm temperate climate isn't it?  Aaroncrick  ( Tassie Talk ) 01:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes I remember hearing on the news that 20.9 was our hottest minimum overnight. 39.0°c hey! that was good. Ever since I've been interested in the weather I've kept an excel(ms) file of the temps per day, it only goes back to January 1st 2007 and in that time there has not been 4 consecutive days of 30+ only 3.


 * Yep just revert that edit. Stony  ¿ 01:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I remember February 2007 being very hot! There were so many does in a row over 270°c or 28°c. (You'd probably know?) but not as extreme as this. Today feels nearly as warm! Yesterdays 39.9 at Launceston Airport, must also be the warmest temp ever recorded in the Launceston Area.  Aaroncrick  ( Tassie Talk ) 01:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a reminder that the talk page isn't a forum but a page to improve the article. Bidgee (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Also, 27 is hardly "very hot" - it got to that at least when I was in Launceston in Dec 03, and definitely where I'm from that would be considered a warm spring day. Orderinchaos 07:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes we know that but this type of weather has come as a bit of shock.  Aaroncrick  ( Tassie Talk ) 02:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Launceston Airport
The reference for Launceston airport gives 40.4 as the hottest temperature, yet BOM give's 39.9, surely BOM would be the most reliable resource here? Stony ¿ 03:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep that exactly what I thought, and i have put a note on Bidgee's talk page. We'll probably have to wait until the BOM release the Tasmanian in January report. I've emailed the Bureau about it, but i doubt i'll get a response.  Aaroncrick  ( Tassie Talk ) 03:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Although http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/tas/20090130.shtml suggests that the Examiner article is correct.  Very confusing. This could only happen in Tasmania. haha  Aaroncrick   ( Tassie Talk ) 03:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I have an answer I too emailed them and asking why do both articles on BOM contradict each other and got the following reply. "There are two sites at Launceston Airport. The old one was 39.9 and the new one was 40.4" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stonyisalegend (talk • contribs) 05:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it appears the BOM website is missing the new site. The site on the BOM website is called "Launceston Airport Comparison" (station 091104) but there is another site established in 2004 called "Launceston Airport" (station 091311). There is a third-party site with data for both sites: old site http://www.weatherzone.com.au/station.jsp?lt=site&lc=91104&list=ds and new site http://www.weatherzone.com.au/station.jsp?lt=site&lc=91311&list=ds -- Barrylb (talk) 05:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's very strange and they haven't explained that anywhere. Thanks for finding that out User:Barrylb  Aaroncrick   ( Tassie Talk ) 05:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I should be taking about article improvements but for those who may want to know. Most likely the old ("Comparison") weather station site will be used in the future for development (as what was done in Darwin but the RAAF use the old site there) and the new weather station will take over but they normally have two sites running for about 5 to 10 years before decommissioning the old weather station. Bidgee (talk) 06:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, well you are helping improve the article by mentioning that. I'll add more info to the climate section tomorrow.  Aaroncrick  ( Tassie Talk ) 06:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Launceston Aquatic Centre
To all these people who surely must eventually read this, Can anyone get a pic of the aquatic centre?  Aaroncrick (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Infobox image
Since when did Cataract Gorge = Launceston.

One is a tourist icon, the other is a community.

The article should be about Launceston, not Cataract Gorge.

--Biatch (talk) 10:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Short of an aerial shot of the CBD, what would be a good (free) one? Orderinchaos 10:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't seem to find a good free one. Agree with Biatch and Orderinchaos.  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 10:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A non panorama image like this would be good.  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 10:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Useless Demographics
This article is palpably NOT about the Launceston City Council or its jurisdiction (which has its own article anyway!!), but about the actual, physical city of Launceston. In this case the "City Council" area includes quite a large rural district (NOT part of the city in any real sense) and excludes most of the North western and Western suburbs - regarded by everyone as an integral part of the city, and containing, between them, about half of the city's population). The demographics section of the article (pasted in below) is in fact pretty well totally irrelevant - since most of its conclusions depend on an assumption that the "city" in a municipal and geographic sense are more or less contiguous - even though the fact that this is not the case is mentioned, as a barely relevant afterthought...

Just read the first sentence!


 * '''Within the Municipality of Launceston, there were, according to the 2006 census, 65,051 residents. This was a little below the peak of 65,370 which occurred in 1991, after which the population began a steady decline, falling to around 62,335 in 2001. Growth resumed between 2002 and 2003 at an estimated 1.3 percent for the year and a further 1.1 percent between 2003 and 2004. This recent growth compares with 1 percent at both junctures for Tasmania as a whole.
 * Most people living in Launceston were either born in Australia or migrated from United Kingdom and Ireland.<(These figures only include the Local government Area (Further Information: Local Government Areas of Australia) which doesn't include Launceston suburbs, located just out of the city, which are; Blackstone Heights, Hadspen, Legana, Prospect Vale, Riverside and Travellers Rest, along with Greater Launceston suburbs and towns).

What is needed is a version of this section, based on the census figures for the actual city ("Greater Launceston") - if this is not too grandiose a description of a city of this size!!

--Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I firmly agree that this doesn't actually help anybody, but the problem is finding a definition which is not WP:OR. For some reason, the statistical district of Launceston extends all the way up the river to George Town and Beauty Point (map here - pop 99,675); the Urban Centre/Locality, on the other hand, is too small (map here, pop 71,395). Orderinchaos 00:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Orderinchaos. The info above is not very helpful either.  Aaroncrick  TALK 01:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

What would be wrong with just putting something together off this page?

http://www.census.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/61505Population/People12004-2008?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=61505&issue=2004-2008

Since the ABS do the census they are the ONLY reliable source and whatever the ABS calls greater Launceston IS Launceston - anything else IS POV and OR. I suspect that this DOES include the East and West Tamar - which I would have thought ought to be counted as rural really - but if you look at ABS stats for every other city in Australia they are pretty similar in including some VERY "outlying" areas (just look at Hobart for instance). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Watch those "touristy" sites!
There's a great deal of fanciful "information" on the web - in fact some KINDS of site probably need to be disqualified as citations for an encyclopedia. For instance I've never heard the word "Launcestonian" (except perhaps facetiously) - and about half the official census population of the place live in other council areas than the Launceston City Council - so remarks that the city is "covered" by the council are ignorant nonsense. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Launcestonian possiby comes from a local amateur football team the "Old Launcestonians". Stony  ¿ 00:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Which actually means "(Former) Students of Launceston Grammar School". Doubly inappropriate here - since it HAS a meaning - but not the right one. The point is that it is NOT a term for "people from Launceston", as the article stated.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed Stony  ¿ 11:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Which is useless to point out unless you also tell us what the correct term is. I think most people would assume "Launcestonian" or "Launcestonite".  I prefer the first, since it sounds less like a mineral or a type of rock formation.  I believe Launcestonite may be the secret weakness of Launcestonians, hence why you're all trying to hide this information from us readers. หมีขั้วโลก (talk) 06:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry if this is meant to be funny, but we have to "assume good faith" (take you seriously). I'm sure readers don't want incorrect "information". Point is that nobody calls people from Launceston "Launcestonians". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Urban structure and architecture
The writing of this grated a bit - with apologies to original author(s) I've made it a little more professional. Cut the "As with the rest of Tasmania" bit - anyone comparing Hobart and Lonny CBDs will immediately be stuck by the fact that height restrictions are (or at least have been) very different in the two cities - the implication that they are uniform throughout the state needed to go - stripped of this error, the phrase seemed no longer very notable. "Most" cbd buildings have five stories or fewer - this is pretty obvious, with just two obvious exceptions. "Many" cbd buildings are "historical" (80 years older or more) - "most" here is much less obvious (although probably true) - and the kind of thing that would need to be sourced. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Explanation of latest revert (Architecture)
If someone can come up with a neater way of explaining that Lonny is basically a late nineteeth/early twentieth century city architecturally - with a few exceptions - by all means change my prose. HOWEVER reducing this to "having various archtectural styles" is neat, but very vaugue - in fact it doesn't say anything, of if it DOES say something then that something is so NOT notable that it might as well be deleted. Realise the intent was in good faith, of course, but hope you see the point. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Third Oldest City?
The article reads: Launceston is Australia's third oldest city (after Sydney and Hobart) and has many historical buildings and sights.

From what I can tell, Sydney was settled in 1788; Newcastle was first explored in 1797, first penal colonies established in 1800, and named Newcastle in 1804; Hobart was established and moved in 1803-1804; and Launceston was established in 1803, but moved to its present location in 1805.

What criteria classifies Launceston as third-oldest city? Is it naming of the city, date of discovery, date of first (penal) colonies, or date of relocation?


 * Hobart Town (as it was known until 1881) was proclaimed a city in 1842. bottom of 2nd paragraph
 * Launceston was proclaimed a city on October 9 1888. ref Stony (talk) 06:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Logically - the "date of actual European settlement at the present site" would seem to be the best and most obvious criterion. By this definition, Australia's "oldest cities" are (in order) - Sydney (1788), Newcastle (1800), Hobart (1804), Launceston (1806) - making Launceston the fourth city in age. But then there are several older settlements that either remained small townships, or which became swallowed by the growth of modern conurbations, and survive only as suburb names. I think the current text "one of Australia's oldest cities" is perfectly adequate, given the fundamental ambiguity of the whole thing. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it may well be by date of proclamation if I'm ever in at town hall(Launceston) I'll certainly ask, what year was newcastle proclaimed a city? Stony (talk) 02:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That might be interesting - although I think by the time Launceston was officially a "city" as such it would have been preceded by quite a few other places - Newcastle probably being just one of them. (Melbourne was a city before the 1880s, surely!) I have often seen the "third oldest" furphy - a think it really should be (at best) "fourth oldest", and then by the "place now a city, by date of original settlement" criterion. "One of the oldest" as in the current article, is, as I said, quite OK, IMHO - and avoids any quibbling. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I have moved this to the end as the "third oldest city" bit has somehow crept back into the article. To summarise the above - this common furphy is far from encyclopedic. The underlying "grain of truth" is that Launceston is a city, and one of Australia's oldest settlements. For the rest...


 * In 1806, when Launceston was first settled, there were several other European settlements in Australia. Of these THREE are now "independant" cities (Sydney, Newcastle and Hobart). So can we just say that Lonnie is the "fourth oldest city"? Not even that simple. Some of the other ("pre-lonnie") settlements (Parramatta springs to mind but there must be others) are now suburbs possessing "city" status in their own right, having been swallowed by the growth of Sydney (and possibly even Hobart and Newcastle).


 * Yet others of the "pre-lonnie" settlements still exist as townships, having never grown to city status. What if one of these now became a city? Imagine (to take just one possible case) the (perhaps inevitable?) event of George Town (founded two years before Launceston) growing to 20,000 people and being declared a city. Would we then refer to Geoge Town as "Australia's fourth oldest city" or as "Australia's NEWEST city"? Might I suggest that the latter is really a great deal more likely. Now, Launceston itself was for many years a relatively small township - in fact it did not officially become a city until nearly 80 years after its foundation. During this time a good many other Australian settlements (including several of much more recent settlement) became cities. On these grounds Launceston may actually have quite a problem defending not just its title to Australia's "fourth oldest city" but even of being a particularly old city at all - even by Australian standards.

Internet sites concocted by local government organisations and/or tourist operators are, to be kind, not always prime examples of historical accuracy in the academic sense - certainly they are not automatically usable as encyclopedic sources!!

--Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Brutalist architecture
The point of the (perhaps rather clumsy) sentence under attack here is that Launceston has relatively few of those mid-to-late 20th / early 21st century buildings that dominate practically all large cities (and many small cities) round the world. We may not be phrasing this terribly well - but it is an indusputable fact - and it would be a shame to lose it for the sake of a neater sentence that did not mean this - and in fact didn't mean anything very much at all, except perhaps a rather misleading platitude. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Utilities has too many photos
There are too many photos in this section, causing the bottom of the page to break. One is sufficient - perhaps a photo of the main dam. However none of the current batch are particularly illustrative of the status quo (dam in flood is more appropriate for a section/article about flooding events). Choose it or lose it ;) --Biatch (talk) 03:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Infobox population figure
As has been mentioned before - the population stats for the Launceston City Council area are really pretty meaningless (this is true of most cities of course). In our case several of the largest suburbs (by no means all of them "outer" or peripheral) are not counted in this total, and it also includes rural areas (like Lilydale) that have crept into the "City" area because of somewhat haphazard council amalgamations in the past. The official census population is the "statistical area" figure, which includes the whole Tamar valley down to Georgetown and may seem a rather over-wide net to cast - but this is the kind of spread used for determining the population of every other city in Australia (just have a look at Cairns!) and is on the whole the best set of numbers we have. We could in theory cut up the census figures and come up with our own for "Greater Launceston" but this would plainly be OR, even if it were desirable and worth the bother. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The latest census release contains very accurate figures for Urban Centres which are defined as the limits of the contiguous urban area. The old statistical areas are no longer relevant (not to mention the Estimated Resident Population calculations were actually proven to be incorrect and inflated), and the new ones are based on employment catchments. The UCL equates to about 10k more than the LGA. Which is what we refer to as cities and is the best grounds for comparison (the figures, in case you wish to dispute them are from the official census and are also listed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Australia_by_population). You could of course draw a line across half the state, but that would be silly. The ABS defines urban areas in km2 and their head count of population. Larger statistical areas can be mentioned also, but the official census figures are the definitive baseline. See below from the ABS regarding the 100K figure which has inaccurate sources ...


 * From the ABS "The conventional demographic treatment for intercensal error is to spread the total amount evenly through the ERP series for the previous five years. However, due to the relatively high intercensal error for the 2006-11 period caused by the improved PES processing, the ABS proposed adjusting historical ERP over a longer period to reflect the different undercount adjustments that would have been used had the improved PES methodology been available in earlier years. After an extensive consultation process, the ABS determined that backcasting 20 years of population estimates back to 1991 will be undertaken, and incorporated into the final 2011 rebasing process later in 2013." See http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/3218.0~2011-12~Main+Features~Upcoming+revisions+to+population+estimates?OpenDocument
 * Indented line

--Biatch (talk) 11:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Just had a browse of updated ABS pages and you're right, of course. The world moves on... But do read the article - there is at least one place (in the lead) where figures will also need updating. Let's be consistent, at least. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Climate resource
The entire article needs help, but I strongly disagree with using the airport climate figures. Ti Tree Bend is just out of the city and has been the primary site since 1970s and is relatively consistent with Launceston pumping station, the main site previously. The airport's climate is slightly different probably due to its 100m or so elevation. Thoughts?  Aaroncrick  TALK 07:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you need to talk to the BOM? We obviously have to go by their criteria and figures, even if we think these are wrong. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)