Template talk:Cities of Western Australia

comment
I reinstated Fremantle as it is indeed a port city and was established as such in the 1800s, before the modern notion of "city" in Australia arose. Rockingham is simply the central suburb of a metropolitan sub-section of Perth, its development even postdated the Metropolitan Region Scheme. As for the major towns, this seemed like major scope creep as WA really doesn't have very many "major towns", and agreeing on a definition would be difficult as everybody's idea is different. Go up the Pacific coast of New South Wales or even a bit inland and you have towns the size of Busselton every 80-100km. Something like Merredin or Harvey, while possibly "major" in WA terms, is most definitely not a "major town". Orderinchaos 03:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps there also is whether there are any indicators from any government instrumentality as to what may constitute anything other than 'cities' in the current west australian government administration - I think not - I cannot remember seeing any town or townsite having anything but 'town' for either administrative or funding purposes or status within a local government area  - so a surveyed townsite with no one living in it can be the same as a heavily populated one - as a consequence to call one 'major' is either OR or POV unless someone can lead me to a citation or ref that says otherwise SatuSuro 06:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There is an actual defintion as to what constitutes a City in Western Australia - will try and chase down the specifics for you (examples include the City of Swan, which comprises the towns of Midland, Guildford etc). Am fairly certain that there is also a definition of a town as well as the small entity is a shire (ie Shire of Peppermint Grove & Town of Claremont). These definitions however relate to the Local Government Authority and not necessarily to the geographical entity. Dan arndt (talk) 08:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Satu's correct - towns get declared, but literally at the drop of a hat - it's for allocating lot numbers. LGA cities aren't of particular interest for the purposes of this template - I was relying on the old definition of over 20,000 for an urban area (which means Albany and Geraldton qualify but Busselton misses out), and the special cases of Perth and Fremantle which were declared under the old English system as cities. Orderinchaos 08:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The provisions related to the changes for Cities and Towns are contained within clause 2.4 of the Local Government Act, 1995 (as amended) which essentially state the Governor can make the following desingations for a locality:
 * a locality can be designated a City (in the metro areas) where it has a population of more than 30,000 residents & more than half live in a urban area (rural areas) has a population over 20,000 & more than half live in an urban area
 * a locality where more than half its population resides in an urban area can be designated a Town
 * anything is designated a Shire
 * Its worth noting that even if there is any subsequent change to the population (ie it decreases below those thresholds) its designation continues to apply until the Governor makes an order for it to be changed (which I guess is why Cities like the City of Nedlands exists with a population of only 20,000). Dan arndt (talk) 08:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)