Talk:Perth waterfront development proposals

pov headings and bias
some editors seem to want to emphasise the barnett position, some de-emphasize - using a bold sub heading is getting close to the earlier heading which was deleted by an barnett supporter who wished to delete a heading naming the city gatekeepers.

also the article is nominally (and could be with adequate trove sources) about changes from 1880 to current - so the current challenges to the barnett plans are a mere component of a much longer historical process SatuSuro 13:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Section on Riverside Drive was edited to remove unsubstantiated claims that the Drive created a barrier to the river.Morethangrass (talk) 12:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

"Esplanade only" or not in 2011/2012 plan?
Perth Waterfront Development says (with my emphasis in bold here):

but the next paragraph says:

This appears to be contradictory, no matter how one defines the scope of "the Esplanade". If the Esplanade includes Supreme Court Gardens, Riverside Drive, Barrack St Jetty, then the words "adjacent features" and "as well" do not belong in the 2nd sentence quoted. If the Esplanade does not include them then the second sentence contradicts the first quoted, which says "Esplanade only". Mitch Ames (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Uncapitalise the title
I propose that we should uncapitalise the title of this article, ie that it should be Perth waterfront development. The scope of the article is not just a single development (ie the current one), it is multiple changes, thus the term "waterfront development" is not a proper noun in this context. Hence it should not be capitalised.

Any objections? Mitch Ames (talk) 02:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * support the change SatuSuro 06:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Or change it to "... plans ..."?
Perhaps we need to rename the article anyway. So I suggest that we need to either: Thoughts, anyone? Mitch Ames (talk) 03:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There's very little detail in the lead or Proposals for change sections about actual development that has occurred. The bolded use of the title Perth Waterfront Developments doesn't appear in the lead paragraph - it's in a "proposals" section, ie the term "Perth Waterfront Developments" is defined as meaning proposals, not actual development.
 * The 1988, 1990, 2005-2030, 2008 sections appear to be discussing proposals and plans with no mention of what development actually took place (and it some cases we know it did not happen).
 * The 2011/2012 hasn't happened yet, but we believe it is likely to happen - but I've already suggested that should be a separate article.
 * Rename the article to Perth waterfront development proposals or similar (and remove the "Proposals for change" section heading), or
 * Rewrite most of the article to talk about some actual developments, rather than plans for development.


 * comment - the material relies upon some absurdity - that is, the esplanade reserve still remains as it was - it has not been legally changed in status yet - until it does it is all plans/proposals...  so we should leave as is, the current material available - the websites and their texts are dreaming - not development.  If your need is to make things accurate - perhaps to be fair to the earlier failed plans, the parent article should be Perth waterfront (so as to include broader scope of the convention centre, and the causeway end stuff), and the child article should be Perth waterfront 2012 and not even assume beyond the plans/proposals - and even if there are Bessie_Rischbieth moments for the government, the idea of creating anything out of developmentsat this stage is a false trail SatuSuro 06:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Separate article for current (2011/2012) development?
The current 2011/2012 plan now takes over half of the article, and I expect that it is likely to grow as the project proceeds. Should we move the bulk of the text into a separate article eg 2012 Perth Water Development (tentatively capitalised because it is the name of a specific development project, ie a proper noun) with just a brief summary in Perth Waterfront Development and a main link to 2012 Perth Water Development? Mitch Ames (talk) 02:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Disagree - see comments above - if there is a separate article - I would suggest that a more neutral and apt title would be Perth waterfront 2012 to tie in with an assumed parent article Perth waterfront - I strongly disagree with using the words Perth Water as anything to do with what has happened to date or what is in the article(s) SatuSuro 06:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oops - "2012 Perth Water Development" was a typo on my part. What I actually meant to type was "2012 Perth Waterfront Development". Mitch Ames (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Commments. 1. Disagree with separate 2012 article per WP:NOTNEWS.  We should be building an encyclopaedia with content relevant to longer term/historical views.  Current stuff should only include enduring events and detail.  2. Agree with uncapitalising the title per above and MOS:TITLE.  The current scope of the article is about a bunch of proposals—including 2012—and is not a proper noun.  When its underway and has been given a fancy name, there may be grounds for a new article then, per WP:SUMMARY.   3. I still sense a degree of editorialising and original research (eg. "and dismisses the 170 year association of the Esplanade as a focus of civic activity on the riverside", and "the suggestion that a tunnel might be built at some time in the future has not been totally dismissed.").  4. We should try to use direct language (refer WP:WTW.  eg. "Serious concerns about a range of issues...", "Significant changes to adjacent features...", "There has been considerable debate on the speculative nature...").  Moondyne (talk) 10:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - seeing the various attempts at re-writes - I no longer think that the word development is appropriate in the article title or in use on the article SatuSuro 13:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm having thoughts about this too. P'raps Perth waterfront development proposals per suggestion above.  Its what the article is about - a list of proposals.  "Perth Waterfront" is the MRA name and should be just about the new project. But I think the content is more important than the title. Moondyne (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Designer / Weller
I've updated the "Designer" section to reflect what the reference actually says - he is "a lead consultant", not "the main designer". We probably need to rename the Designer section, and/or add more information to it.

Split
Now that we have a name, and with earthworks underway, is it time to split the current development to Elizabeth Quay and rename this this to Perth waterfront development proposals? Moondyne (talk) 07:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Moondyne (talk) 03:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The move/split is all very good, but we should probably leave a short (one or two sentences) summary under Perth_waterfront_development_proposals. Having a section with nothing but a main seems to me to be bad form/style. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. I've added a couple of sentences - feel free to expand if you feel it needs more, per Summary style. Moondyne (talk) 13:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * some problems:-
 * The current state of the lead para suggests that the last 30 years have had the same title for the proposals - someone needs to prove that as it is OR as it stands - unless examples are given...
 * The Esplanade will remain The Esplanade - there is a possibility that in the Hansard record evidence that the government has simply applied a new name for the hole they are digging - not the areas in which it exists - which makes the new title incorrect for the development... there are in fact three separate items - Elizabeth Quay and The esplanade are merely a component parts of the overal current 'perth foreshore development' - none of them cancel each other out, and editing and splitting etc needs to be very careful not to conflate the three - otherwise it will end up looking like a piece of the west australian journalism - rather than careful explanation of the distinctions
 * The constant over editing/pruning for fear of bias has robbed the articles of some useful examples of where errors and inconsistencies and consistencies in public statements creep in, the lean-ness may appeal, but a substantial amount of useful references have been lost.. also the subsequent events and reportable comments are long moved on from the state of the article of a month or two ago...
 * SatuSuro 13:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see it, but if we change "frequently referred to as" to "sometimes referred to as", would that suffice?
 * The Esplanade as being referred to here is in fact "Esplanade Reserve" (see move proposal on that talk page). I don't see any chance of conflation and agree that they're all separate and need separate articles.  "Elizabeth Quay" is however an official name now per RS and is therefore a reasonable working title for the development project. PWDP article gives a historical perspective of the proposals.
 * I make no apologies for editing/pruning to remove bias. If I dropped something in the cut and paste which you think needs to be there, add it back in or let's discuss.  The split did prune some text and a few newspaper cites that I thought were too WP:NEWSPAPER or WP:SOAPBOXish.  Are inconsistencies in public statements really encyclopaedic?  eg. "the Government had missed two self-imposed deadlines": will anyone care in ten one year's time? As you know from my editing style, I have a fondness towards lean-ness and don't believe in padding for no good reason.
 * Moondyne (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The litany from the proponents of the current development assumes that the details  of the proposal to change has been the same for twenty years, that is simply not true, the details are different and current format maybe only 4 or 5 years old or less - neither suggested alteration works. A better qualified neutral approach would be to point out that the proposal to change has been there for a long time but the details vary wildly.
 * It might be clear to current editors the differences between the reserve, the quay and the devlopment - but the tendency in the shoddy journalism about the issue, web usages and other public expressions will challenge - and require vigilance regardless of how clear it seems here.
 * More power to your editing/pruning - it might take some time to uncover what might have been inadvertant dropping of what might turn out later to be of significant issues, but no big deal at the moment. SatuSuro 23:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * good idea to split both look, from my memory there is one more development that focused on sinking riverside drive from langley park to the freeway. Additionally the sentence that says that proposals are often characterized by strong opposition from people arguing that the plans often necessitate redirection of traffic from the major arterial route Riverside Drive doesnt fit with the earlier designs that didnt redirect traffic or incorporated riverside in the planning Gnangarra 02:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Gnangarra - the previous, 2008, development retained Riverside Drive, as did the 2009 Landgate plan. As there was no diversion, no argument resulted. 'Often' is inaccurate and waffly.

Elizabeth Quay is the new name of the Barnett Govt plan, but my understanding is that the site will still be the Esplanade. This is like Piara Waters, etc, as a development name and the geographic name is not changed. The Elizabeth Quay page should link back to Perth Waterfront page, and should be a section within the Perth Waterfront Development page - "in June 2012, the Premier announced that the development was to be named/known as 'Elizabeth Quay'.  A stub (?) is formed for Elizabeth Quay, and any news or developments about it are put under that.  Perth Waterfront Development remains as a broader page for discussions about the waterfront/foreshore in generalMorethangrass (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Mostly non-notable?
Being myself a Perthite and having read this collection of 'proposals' for the first time, I cringed in embarrassment over its feeble politics. The first rule of WP:BALL is "scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". So how about scrapping the whole article and just proceeding with Elizabeth Quay? There will still be room for valid historical events and for the customary criticisms, maybe even for 'In popular culture' :) Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think WP:BALL applies here as this article isn't about future events, rather it is about past events - the publication/announcement/reception of previous waterfront development proposals. The guideline on notability is Notability, and I don't see any reason to scrap the whole article. In particular, notability is not temporary, so the construction of Elizabeth Quay is no reason to delete this article. - Evad37 (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)