Talk:Canberra/Archive 2

message: 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:
*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
 --nixie 03:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: 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)
replies: text: I found the area in 2003, from the ABS.--nixie 04:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  transport

message: 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)
thread_title: Grammar

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Population

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: ok I put some in, found some info here  Cfitzart 07:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: I was thinking for doing this myself to get an article like Suburbs of Johannesburg--nixie 01:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organisation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  the opening 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Thanks, much clearer now.--nixie 10:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  pictures 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  unique contractual agreement? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  economy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Headings 

message: 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)
thread_title: Media, culture and heading

message: :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
# DONE
— Ambush Commander(Talk) 20:51, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
: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)
thread_title:  LinkFix dump 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Education 

message: 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)
thread_title: Sport

message: Does Canberra get digital broadcasts?--nixie 04:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Digitial tv

message: 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)
thread_title: Culture

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Transport - roads 

message: 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)
thread_title: "Kembera", "Kembery" etc WERE NOT names for the Molonglo River

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Have been doing some more research and found some other words which I put in Ngunnawal people Cfitzart 12:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ngunnawal language today? 

message: Would anyone mind if I convereted the notes section over to a references section and changed it to using Wikipedia:Footnote3 which seems to have become the defacto standard and has replaced Wikipedia: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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: No, the Wikipedia: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)
replies: text: I have used some notes more than once, thats why I originally used fn4.--nixie 11:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes/References 

message: 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)
thread_title: The Australia Wikiportal

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Geology Section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Geology

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Unique 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Tallest Mountain 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  ACTs or ACT's?? 

message: The pronunciaiton guides should probably  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Pronunciation Guide