Talk:Brisbane/Archive 2

message: How did this happen ? 
There are barely any references in this article.  Not much at all has changed since I last read it with a B rating. --Biatch 04:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed it back to B Class, seems someone snucked in a A somewhere. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 14:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-class Rating ????? 

message: Wondering whether there are any who might have some information relating to the Flag of Brisbane. If we can get an article together or perhaps incorporate it in with the Brisbane article that'd be great. Yarub 00:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag of Brisbane 

message: It appears that we are using the ABS statistics for population on the Brisbane statistical division which includes the Gold Coast, Ipswich, Logan City etc. See here for what I mean. I would think we should only be quoting the Brisbane City statistics (around 900K, not the Brisbane statistical Division (around 1.8M). How can we realistically include these other cities in our statistics. No one thinks of the Gold Coast, Redcliff or Ipswich as being part of Brisbane.  Rimmeraj 04:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can see, Brisbane = Brisbane + Pine Rivers + Redcliffe + Caboolture + Redlands + Logan + urban Ipswich + Beenleigh bit of Gold Coast (the only bit actually within "Part A" - even Coomera is in a different stat div). Not sure about "no one" - I agree about the Gold Coast (apart from Beenleigh) and Caboolture, but Newsradio traffic reports for Brisbane seem to almost dwell on Goodna, for example, which is almost at Ipswich. Brisbane is in a *unique* situation in the country where a large part of its metro area is in one LGA due to past amalgamation, but if we used this definition in other cities, Perth would have just 8,905 people, Adelaide 13,724, Melbourne 60,745, Sydney 122,211 and Hobart 48,794 (according to their respective pages). Somehow I don't see Perth or Adelaide people agreeing that Hobart is 4-6 times their size. All Australian cities are poorly defined and noone quite knows where they start or end (arguably Adelaide and Brisbane are the best defined due to geographical lock-in) - I've had fun recently with the Melb articles re what is in and what is not. I'm prepared to agree with the ABS on this one. Orderinchaos78 06:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the input. so when you say agree with the ABS, do you mean their 'Brisbane' or 'Brisbane City'. The Brisbane City one contains all suburbs in the city council. Rimmeraj 08:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As in the statistical district, in line with other cities in Australia. In Perth, the City of Rockingham and City of Wanneroo, both taking in places 50 km from Perth, are counted as suburban regions of Perth by both the ABS and the Dept of Local Government and Regional Development. Orderinchaos78 10:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If we do use the statistic that includes the oher locations such as Ipswich, then I think this needs to be very clear to the reader. When I first read the population statistic, I did not realise it included the external councils. I would think that the majority of readers from Brisbane would also think this. I am not sure how, we need a way of stating what the population actually covers. This goes for land area as well. Does anyone else have any ideas? Rimmeraj 11:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: One possibility in Brisbane's unique case is to have both. i.e. 900,000 (City of Brisbane)1,800,000 (Metropolitan) or somesuch (with correct figures obviously) Orderinchaos78 12:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this would work fine. If anyone does not object I shall make the edit soon. Rimmeraj 22:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics 

message: The information about Brisbane's tallest buildings has now been transferred to the List of skyscrapers in Brisbane article. Figaro 22:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep an eye out, some IPs (probably the same one rotating through different IP) have been trying to put that information back on the main article (and removing the references and undoing many other useful edits at the same time) --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 00:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the anon IP's are at it again. Reverted change on 14 dec. We may need to consider a temporary protect on this page or somehow protecting against this IP range. Rimmeraj 22:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I think that the protection against this IP range would be a good idea.  I notice that the anon IP has been posting all the edits from the same IP provider in the United States. Figaro 22:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: ok, enough is enough, it happened the next day. I am submitting a request for temporary protection from unregistered users from that IP range. Rimmeraj 22:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  no such luck. Request for semi protection was declined based on 'not enough edits', so apparently we have to keep reverting until the vandal gets tired of it. Rimmeraj 04:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a pity about the result, but thank you for trying.  Very much appreciated. Figaro 08:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brisbane's tallest buildings 

message: The article states that Mincom, based in Brisbane is Australia's largest software company. 
I know for a fact that multiple software companies make this claim. 
Exactly what is the measure here (number of employees ?  revenue ? number of offices ?).  There were no references and the Mincom Limited article does not make this claim, so I removed the contentious content until someone can supply something that is not so POV oriented. --Biatch 00:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. WP:WEASEL.  Some independent citations that credit Mincom's significance would be more appropriate. --Biatch 23:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia's largest software company ? 

message: Could some one possibly find out the Degrees, Minutes and Seconds for Brisbane and fix them as most other Major Australian cities are in DMS???? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.158.45.83 (talk) 08:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinates 

message: Does Brisbnae have an offical flower?  --202.47.51.210 14:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flower 

message: A recent edit changed the population saying projected was better than Census. the thing is that almost every town and city and locality article in Wikipedia for Australia uses official Census data. it's better to be consistent. Michellecrisp 05:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be an edit war on this going on, particularly from ip users, I say anything that doesn't have a better ref than whatever was there before gets reverted! aliasd·U·T 04:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population 

message: Heya! I reverted an edit on this page by CJ which removed the Sister Cities from this article. I reverted CJ's edits for the following reasons:
* This section is in keeping with other articles on metropolitan areas.
* If someone was looking for this information, they would look here.
* This information is actually less confusing here than it is for other major metropolitan areas. For instance, Melbourne has 30 individual cities in its metro area compared to 3 or 4? in Brisbane.
That being said, I am aware places like Redcliffe and Logan have their own sister cities. If they really do come under the scope of this article (debatable) mabye some changes should be made. 
Anyway, if anyone diagrees with me on this reversion, please try and reach consensus here rather than simply redoing CJ's edits. aliasd·U·T 19:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is hardly a controversial edit, and quite the opposite of what you say, it is in fact in keeping with articles on metropolitan areas (refer Australian capital cities). It's something that has been established through various conversations at WP:AUSPLACES and elsewhere (Melbourne remains outside the standard, as some claim there is a metropolitan arrangement, though this is not certain). Sister sister relationships are entered into by municipal authorities who do not have authority over the metropolitan area. Information about sister cities is therefore contained within the articles on the respective LGAs. I re-removed the section.--cj | talk 01:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are redcliffe and logan really in the scope of this article anyway? I think it seems this article mostly only deals with the city of Brisbane as an LGA and city anyway. aliasd·U·T 05:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Redcliffe and Logan are counted in the population numbers as part of Greater Brisbane but the article refers mostly to Brisbane as a city, not as a region. Logan and Redcliffe have their own pages anyway. 124.171.221.51 23:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sister Cities 

message: As queenslandholidays.com.au is a Queensland Government resource, and Brisbane could be considered a major tourist destination, is the link possibly relevant? aliasd·U·T 10:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Links 

message: I think that the development of the North-South Bypass tunnel should be mentioned in the article. Surely such a costly and overhauling development deserves some recognition. Does anyone else agree? --Will465 (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The TransApex project is already mentioned with a link to it's own page, with a further link to the North-South Tunnel. Not sure road tunnels are that interesting to a general readership to need more. --Michael Johnson (talk) 03:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Tunnel? 

message: As requested on my talk page, here's some feedback on the article:
*Lead - "Brisbane CBD" should be linked to or defined.  I see it is linked in paragraph 1 of the history section but feel it should not be left undefined in the lead. 
*History - don't wikilink "Brisbane central business district" twice in such close proximity 
*History - whole paragraph starting "historic buildings...." is unsourced 
*History - "Brisbane tuff"?  Presumably this is some sort of stone, but I've never heard of it, so might benefit from an appropriate wikilink  - it's a type of igneous rock
*History - "an interesting anecdote" - not sure this turn of phrase is truly encyclopedic 
*History - last two paragraphs are unsourced 
*Geography - all bar the last paragraph is unsourced 
*Governance - lack of sourcing again 
*Economy - ....and again
*Education - no need for capital A on "A member of...." 
*Arts and entertainment - image alongside this section doesn't seem relevant, suggest it be moved elsewhere 
*Annaul events - "Major cultural events include the Ekka (the Royal Queensland Show, aka Royal National Association (RNA) Exhibition) is held each year in August" - not grammatically correct  
*Media - "Quest Newspapers (which is also owned by News Corporation.)" - full stop should not be inside brackets 
Quite a few little "niggles" there, but overall the article is very good, with excellent images.  Just a few issues with the text, but if the ultimate aim is FA status then some more references would definitely be needed.  Hope this helps!!! ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be helpful, thanks heaps :) — Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: I am looking for a reliable cite to cite the bit about the river mangroves growing in mud deposited during the flood.  I know it's true, problem is I can't find anywhere that's not sketchy to attribute it to.  If anyone could find a reliable source it would be much appreciated.  Lankiveil (talk) 10:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.coastal.crc.org.au/pdf/HistoricalCoastlines/App_3_Timeline_BrisbaneRiver.pdf alludes to this a bit, so I've added it in. It's the best I could find...— Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Try The Brisbane River: A pictoral history by Longhurst, Robert; William Douglas or another reference on the Brisbane River article.  I have seen it mentioned at least once somewhere. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone please... 

message: There was a recent insertion of a sentence about a serious squirmish between Australina and US soldiers in 1942 - where one person was killed.  Considering to real battles and wars that Australia has been involved in; and facts like the headquarters of the Australina armed forces was in Brusbane -  I find this seriously out of place.  I questioned it originally as it needed some authority and indeed that has been put in place.  But I suggest it is an odd entry. An encyclopedia about a city needs to be more circumspect.  But I do not like edit wars and so I would seek comments before doing anytjhing. Alan Davidson (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt such a statement is necessary, support removal. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The statement is in the History section (it is a part of Brisbane's history). Only a short sentence that gives the internal link to the main article at Battle of Brisbane. I think it should stay. Sting_au  Talk 03:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, thought something else was being referred to. I don't see a reason why that one sentence shouldn't stay...— Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Whilst I disagree - I seem to be the only one at the moment.  But, I suppose my objection is in part that in the context of a paragraph on WWII, it is misleading; "armed" and "battle" with "US" and "Australia" make it sound like a sanctioned part of the war where the two countries were ... at war. Particular stating it was "during World War II" makes it sounds like it was part of the war. I would suggest it should be described - more like - a civil unrest between visiting US personell and Australian servicemen which escalated to a serious brawl involving the firing of shots and one death. Taking words from the Battle of Brisbane Wiki site - how about this: "In 1942 Brisbane was the site of a violent clash between visiting US military personnel on one side and Australian servicemen and civilians on the other - resulting in one death and several injuries. This incident became known colloquially as the Battle of Brisbane. Alan Davidson (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah seems ok? But Battle of Brisbane remains an internal link right? and the sentence still needs a citation. Sting_au  Talk 11:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Alan Davidson (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Brisbane 

message: Any thoughts on throwing this up? From what I can see the prose is OK, and most of the stuff that needs refs has it - a few extra eyes couldn't hurt. Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's easily to GA standard.  I think it's even potentially FAC standard, to be honest.  Lankiveil (talk) 12:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA nom? 

message: Since the last peer review I put up a couple of years ago failed MISERABLY, I've thought it would be a great idea to put it up again, we could get some really constructive help to push the article in the right direction. Anyone agree/disagree? James Pinnell (talk) 08:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good to see you're still around (Wikipedia:Meetup/Brisbane 2???). Sure, go ahead with a PR. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done a lot of anonymous edits and some lurking, bit I figured it was time for an appearance ;) - I'll relodge a PR and we'll see what eventuates. James Pinnell (talk) 13:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see an automated peer review was done using a javascript program. Automated review. What do people think of the suggestions generated by that program? Sting au Buzz Me... 02:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means act on it, these things generally pick up MOS stuff that's useful. Peripitus has also added a review, which I'll get too at some stage (please beat me too it, guys!) dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 10:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done some work on this, but plenty more to do. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 05:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review #2 

message: I think we should consider removing all but Brisbane from the LGA section of the Infobox. If I am in Logan, I wouldn't consider myself part of the state capital, similarly with Ipswich, Redcliffe, or Pine Rivers. Redlands perhaps, but really Brisbane is the City of Brisbane as defined by the City of Brisbane Act. 
If we include Pine Rivers, Logan and Redlands, we could include the (soon to be former) Caboolture Shire. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 11:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine. There needs to be care taken then with information about the City of Brisbane Act then (which I included in the lead). I'm not sure the best route to go with that one. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 13:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with Nicholas Perkins, that the other LGAs should be removed from the infobox. Ipswich, Logan and Redcliffe are their own cities and are not part of the city of Brisbane. - Shiftchange (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I beleive that the lga's should stay as many cities around the world include areas surrounding the main city as that city informally. Look at Los Angeles, many cities have grown to form a huge conurbation or big city, same applies for Brisbane, various cities surrounding the city have grown to form the extensive  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lav90 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ipswich has never been part of Brisbane and the same goes for Logan and other surrounding councils. To claim so, would be inaccurate. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, but many of these cities are considered part of the Brisbane Metropolitan Area, which is why the population is at about 2 million. Well soon ipswich will be entirely part of Brisbane considering the huge development occurring along the western corridor. Clare94 (talk) 12:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Brisbane Metropolitan Area is a bit of a weasel word. Brisbane has a population of 1.85 million. South East Queensland has a population of 2.77 million and it is a much better term for describing the wider Brisbane area. Wollongong and Newcastle aren't included in the population of Sydney and Bendigo, Ballarat and Geelong aren't included in the population of Melbourne. MvjsTalking 05:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is my understanding that Brisbane Statistical Local Area (the source for the quoted population of 1.85m) covers Ipswich, Logan, the former Pine Rivers, Redcliffe and Caboolture and Redlands. There is a fundamental tension in this article about wheter it represents the City of Brisbane (an LGA) or the Brisbane metropolitan area. For population, it includes the greater Brisbane area, e.g. "It is also the third most populous city in Australia, behind southern rivals Sydney and Melbourne)" This is not true if you only consider the City of Brisbane. Later in the lede, it states "Brisbane is controlled by the Brisbane City Council." which is only partly true if you are considering the greater Brisbane area. This is only the lede but the mixed messages continue throughout the article. I feel the article needs to pick a definition and stick to it. My personal view is that this article should be about the greater Brisbane area from Caboolture to Browns Plains, from Yamanto to Victoria Point and an article called City of Brisbane should cater for the LGA.. I am aware this is a minority view. -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

text: The City of Brisbane's population is much smaller than described in this article a mere 956,129, smaller than Perth and Adelaide. -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually wasn't aware of some of these details. I agree with you wholeheartedly that the article should pick a definition and stick with it. It's not good for the article to have this ambiguity. MvjsTalking 06:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Local Government Areas 

message: This section could do with some mention of the multitude of community radio stations that operate in Brisbane. --Aioth (talk) 07:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media section 

message: It was noted here that a climate table similar to the one at Wagga Wagga, New South Wales#Climate would help. Anyone wanna go for it? dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 07:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll stick something together tonight. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 07:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

text: And that's done. The data is only from 1994-2007 as they moved their reporting station in 1994. Without actual yearly data it is impossible to combine the two (and might not be representative. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 11:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work! dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 09:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I"m just wondering why the shift to climate data is from the Brisbane Aero station? The older table quoted that from the Brisbane Regional station, and i believe that this should still be the case as not only is the data collected closer to the actual center of the city but the collection period is quite a bit lengthier. The new design is certainly preferable though. $eti (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Brisbane Regional was closed in 1994, while temperature data is only available up to 1986. There were two Brisbane Aeros, with first closing in 2000 and the second opening that in 1992. The choices of operating recording locations is Brisbane Aero, Archerfield or Redlands. I felt that Brisbane Aero was a better choice. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 04:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climate table 

message: As part of Brisbane's Wikimania bid, the Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre have kindly released a number of images into the public domain for us to use on the bid.  However, since they're PD, they can probably also be used here.  I have put together a little gallery on Commons:
* :commons:User:Lankiveil/Brisbane
Hopefully someone finds this useful.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh wow, very nice. I'll get someone to get the OTRS stuff done and then add them in. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 11:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BCEC images 

message: So since I've requested a GA review, it's only equable for me to give one. I choose this article because it's a place I've been to at least once in my life. 
1. Standard of writing
* clear prose, correct spelling and grammar  
* brief, informative lead
* lists are incorporated
2. Verifiability
* 62 references, none of them blogs 
* No contentious material relating to living persons
3. Breadth
* Just about every aspect about a city is covered and it answers all the questions coming to my mind
* One aspect is not covered: the defence of Brisbane. This may link to the historical issue of the Brisbane Line. Please tell us what military assets (defence establishments, etc) are available to secure and defend the city by air, land and sea/river.
* I would also like to know if any part of it has ever been threatened by any significant bushfires. I presume drought is not an issue. Do swarms of cane toads cause problems at any time of year, similar to the way legions of Bogong moths descend on Sydney and Canberra at seasonal times?
* The history section makes no observations for the period 1942-1982 and 1988 onward
* Who does it have local government Sister city arrangements with?
* Tell us about the existence of any national parks within its vast area
4. Neutral 
* Yes, it's not a public relations piece and not an attack piece
5. Stability
* History shows collaboration between editors
6. Illustration
* You have a CBD map and an aerial view of the river but no illustration that demonstrates the full 5900km2. Remedy this.
* Otherwise there are many other appropriate and well-placed images with explanatory captions
Good article.Prisoner Of Integrity (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Brisbane_GA. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviewed and Accepted as a Good Article 

message: This article's GA status has been challenged. Click the link for areas that are still in need of improvement. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA reassessment

message: The article currently states that the water restrictions has had the effect of "giving Brisbane the lowest per capita usage of water of any Western city in the world."  I have added a cite on this, but it's not too detailed, so if anyone can link to some hard figures on this, that would be great.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I removed this statement; I certainly intended to. I don't think it's citable, and it could easily suffer from Recentism. I think removing it would be a good idea. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed on recentism.  I suspected that it wasn't really verifiable, but optimistically hoped that someone would prove me wrong =).  Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Water Usage 

message: It was brought up in the GA review that the lead of the article is a little choppy, which is something that I happen to agree with.  I have come up with an alternate version that I think flows a little better, using Canberra and Hobart for inspiration:
Thoughts?  The buildings and institutions listed at the end are purely drawn "out of a hat" as t'were, so if anyone can think of more encompassing institutions, I'm happy to take suggestions.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems OK at a glance, though I would suggest we get the article where we want it in terms of content before the lead. The lead should reflect the rest of the article, which is tough if we haven't done the rest of the article fully! dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken, but I think the structure of the article is fine as it is, as far as I can see the changes that need to be made are primarily re-writes for style and the inclusion of additional citations, not the insertion of any major new information or content.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Agree that this will need work as new things are added to the article, but I think this would be a good place to start future leads from. It would complement the current article and could be updated as new pieces are added.Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 10:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewriting the lead? 

message: While the 'Gabba is formally known as the Brisbane Cricket Ground, no-one in Brisbane and no-one in Cricket or Australian football circles ever uses the term.  I would lay London to a brick that most Brisbanites would not know the 'Gabba had a formal name.  Insisiting on formality here is misleading and confusing to the lay reader. If I was up for an argument I would propose renaming the BCG (BCG, who calls it the BCG?) article as well. -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in Brisbane and you're right that everyone here calls it The Gabba. No one ever uses Brisbane Cricket Ground or BCG. I see on the Brisbane Lions article they refer to playing their home games at the G which is short for Gabba of course.--Sting au Buzz Me... 07:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that's a concern, since the MCG is also known to Victorians as the G. The Gabba I would be fine with. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 08:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, it looks like I'm being outvoted, although I think the correct name should be used here. --Dmol (talk) 09:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is a consensus yet. Let's sit on this for a few days, there is no hurry to make a permanent decision.  Perhaps a wider view may be needed. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Does it matter who calls it the Gabba? "It is the only name that most Queenslanders know" does not matter, this is not queensland.wikipedia it is a world wide english.wikipedia. JayKeaton (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine,  who anywhere, other that the Gabba Trust, calls it the Brisbane Cricket Ground?  From WP:NAME, "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature."  For a specific example of this principle see the article name for the New Zealand national rugby team - "All Blacks"  Like the All Blacks, The Gabba is a special case where the colloquial name is the most appropriate. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: [of wikipedia] calls it the Brisbane Cricket Ground, [none] of Wikipedia uses Gabba. Not to mention that you are disturbing Wikipedia guidelines by having a link saying one thing leading to another. JayKeaton (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Using Wikipedia as a source is a self-reference and circular. The reason most articles link to Brisbane Cricket Ground is because the article (for now) is called that and editors have tried to avoid redirects.  If you look at what links to Brisbane Cricket Ground, you will see that "The Gabba", currently a redirect page, is actually fairly heavily used given the attention normally given to avoiding redirects.  I would suggest that if the links to Brisbane Cricket Ground are followed back, a large proportion are actualy written as "the Gabba" with a piped link to Brisbane Cricket Ground.  See for example, Dick Reynolds and Bill O'Reilly where "gabba" is linked to the Brisbane Cricket Ground page.  As for disturbing Wikipedia guidelines, can you show the guideline in question?  Linking topics to differently named relevant articles is what piped links are for. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

text: The type in "Brisbane Cricket Ground" has received 1331 hits this month, the type in "The Gabba" has received only 106. Anyway as for guidelines see Principle of least astonishment. Also according to WP:Intuitive the piped links are not very intuitive, as those who do not already know about the colloquial name of "the gabba" will not understand that is it is referring to the Brisbane Cricket Ground unless they click on the link, and if they print the article they will never know what "the gabba" means as the actual, legal, accurate and most factual name of the grounds will be lost. And finally colloquialism and slang should not be used to hide the actual links as it is just purely unprofessional and misleading, hindering the usefulness of the link for anyone outside of Australia. JayKeaton (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You think it is "purely unprofessional and misleading"? I just checked your user page and you have userboxes that state you have made 320,000 edits (it's 4045) and that you've been nominated for the Nobel Peace prize 57 times? --Sting au Buzz Me... 06:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My user page is my own page to do what I like with, and it's not a main namespace articles so Wikipedia policy and guidelines do not apply to me. But my user page is not the topic of discussion here. JayKeaton (talk) 07:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:USER. Your userpage is for anything that is compatible with the Wikipedia project. You can't actually do what you like with it. Just like any other page on Wikipedia anyone can view it and in some instances make edits to it. The userboxes I mentioned look to me like WP:NONSENSE? That guideline tells me that editors may remove such material to article talk pages OR in fact user talk pages. So I've hardly begun and already see guidelines you say do not apply to you? I'm sorry but it's just hard for me to take your comments of colloquialism being unprofessional and misleading seriously when you display such nonsense on your very own userpage.--Sting au Buzz Me... 10:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

text: If you really wish to discuss these, then please talk about it on my talk page instead of the Brisbane articles talk page. And WP:NONSENSE doesn't apply to talk pages. Please keep this talk page related to Brisbane. And it doesn't look like you have anything to say about the Brisbane Cricket Ground links, despite directing me to the talk page in your edit summary, so I correct them again. JayKeaton (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't in my edit summary so I think you mean someone else. As for my comments on the Brisbane Cricket Ground links I thought I gave my view in the second post of this section.--Sting au Buzz Me... 06:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I assumed that was your edit summary from memory, I should have checked. JayKeaton (talk) 10:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If "The Gabba" is the official name for it and "Brisbane Cricket Ground" is the colloquial name for it then the article Brisbane Cricket Ground needs to me moved to The Gabba and all instance of "Brisbane Cricket Ground" (except a short sentence that explains that "Brisbane Cricket Ground" is a nickname for it) all over Wikipedia needs to be changed to "The Gabba". I'm astounded that for so long Wikipedia has been refering to The Gabba by its "Brisbane Cricket Ground" nickname for so long. Per Wikipedia guidelines we must remove most of colloquial uses of "Brisbane Cricket Ground" and use the official name for it instead. JayKeaton (talk) 05:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate the mature response. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 07:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brisbane Cricket Ground/Gabba 

message: I have have removed the following sentence...
"The settlement grew from a penal colony established at his direction in 1824 at Redcliffe, 
 to the north."
It is incorrect to suggest that the settlement in Brisbane 'grew' from the settlement in Redcliffe.  These are separate settlements.  The settlement in Redcliffe was closed when they moved to Brisbane.  Furthermore, it is incorrect to suggest that Redcliffe is 28kms north of Brisbane.  Redcliffe is a total of 3km north of Brisbane separated only by the Petrie river. Aggressivesecularist (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, yes you are correct in that the settlement moved to Brisbane – it was left and abandoned until the 1860s.  However, if the "BS" is correct as it was written, in that the settlement moved to "the current location of the Brisbane CBD" at North Quay, then it is " to the north".  Redcliffe (or the former Redcliffe City Council area to be correct in this context) is immediately north of the Brisbane City Council municipal area across Bramble Bay, however the first settlement location is actually a measurable 28 km north of the second settlement location, between Humpybong Creek in Redcliffe and North Quay in the Brisbane central business district.  I'll reinstate this with some clarification and improvements from further research with citations.  <B>S<SPAN STYLE="font-size:87%">EO75</SPAN></B> [talk] 03:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

text: "Petrie River"?  Where is that? Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Pine River is meant.  <B>S<SPAN STYLE="font-size:87%">EO75</SPAN></B> [talk] 04:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redcliffe 

message: After a bit of research I found some infomation, here and here, that enabled me to get the inbuilt locator map functioning as it was intended. Using the inbuilt function allows you to have both an image and a locator map in the infobox so there's really no need for arguments as to which is preferred. Some may argue that a map of Australia is preferred to a map of Queensland but I think, as apparently did those involved in the creation of the template, that the individual state map gives a much better indication of the location within the state. I made a test edit to the article (no, I didn't get rid of that horrible whitespace at the top of the article), which I've reverted, so you can see what it looks like. You can view it here. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ideally both images would have the same width, but anyways, nice work mate! —Giggy 06:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To make them the same size you can reduce the size of the image to 230px (easy) or increase the size of the locator map to 270px (requires edits to template). The first has the undesired effect of reducing the lead image, which should really be 300px anyway, and the second would make Queensland a lot bigger than it is now. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks nice Aussieguy, is it possible for the infobox to be extended down into the start of the article like London's is? (to get rid of the white space)User_Talk:Brisbane Man 11:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems alright to me.  Picture first, followed by the map indicator seems to be logical flow here.  Don't mind either way. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 11:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

text: The whitespace is being caused by the first image in the article. Placing the image tag immediately after the "History" heading, as it is now, stops that section from starting until the image can be displayed, which is not until after the infobox. It's easily fixed by moving the image tag after the infobox. The image stays in the same place but the text can then start immediately after the TOC. I tried doing that but the change was reverted for reasons that I don't completely understand. According to the edit summary it was to return the image "to its rightful position in the history section" but when I made the change I checked at 800x600, 1024x768 and 1280x1024 (ie the most common resolutions) and the image was displayed in the history section so the edit summary doesn't reaslly make sense. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you try contacting the editor who reverted your edit?--Sting Buzz Me... 00:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I didn't bother. I wouldn't have even mentioned it if Brisbane Man hadn't asked about whitespace. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A solution that should make everyone happy

message: Do you think it is worth adding that there is an LDS temple in Brisbane?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mantion (talk • contribs) 06:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. There's also a Buddhist temple, a Church of Scientology and just about every other religion you want to mention. So unless they were all given a summary under a religion section I see no need for it. I'm unsure if other capital city articles go into places of religious worship much? It just seems trivial to me.--Sting Buzz Me... 22:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Sting above, but isn't the temple itself in Woolloongabba, Queensland?  Might be worth a mention there.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  LDS temple 

message: Is there room in this article or the History of Brisbane for mention of the Deen Brothers, particularly Cloudland and the Bellevue Hotel's midnight demolition.  THese were major events of cultural significance to Brisbane.  --Biatch (talk) 04:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they were significant and newsworthy changes to the architectural history of Brisbane.  Worthy of a few lines.--Dmol (talk) 13:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cloudland, Bellevue and the Deen Brothers 

message: Surely Brisbane has a sister city or two? I know for a fact that Brisbane, California, is a sister city of Brisbane, Queensland's, but I'm certain I read somewhere of others, particularly one in Japan (it rings a bell). Anyone have any citations/willing to edit it? Damienzor (talk) 11:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The City of Brisbane has several sister cities however, these are of the City of Brisbane rather than of Brisbane. Mvjs (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still not clear on this. Could you please precisely explain the difference? The City of Brisbane page says that the City of Brisbane refers to Brisbane and it's council. So according to Wikipedia they are the same thing, but your emphasising a difference between the City of Brisbane and Brisbane. If the Semarang articles list Brisbane as a sister city, why can't we list it? - Shiftchange (talk) 11:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for any confusion I may have caused, Shiftchange. I should be using the correct term for the City of Brisbane, Brisbane City Council. The Brisbane City Council is the council that governs parts of Brisbane, the general term Brisbane refers to the whole Brisbane area, including parts that are not governed by the BCC. This is the same as the structure in most other capital cities in Australia, there's the City of Melbourne and the City of Sydney that govern parts of the wider area known as "Melbourne" and "Sydney" respectively. As you can see the BCC lists the seven sister cities that are sister cities of it. Remember, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS should not be used as a reasoning for inclusion in an article. I'm very much open to discussion about inclusion of these in the article, as probably colloquially, these seven cities would be probably paired with the wider area rather than their strict, official city pairing. MvjsTalking 20:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sister Cities? 

message: In Brisbane#Locations of facilities and features can someone please check  for me please.  Specifically I am not sure at all that I have the correctly referred to the Albert Bridge, Brisbane and the unnamed bridge, which is center and which is on the right.  (I am surprised no one picked up my mistake with the Jack Pesch Bridge, Brisbane - now fixed - I had it down stream instead of up stream).
Also, the 30 facilities and features I have marked are not chosen for any particular reason.  I stopped at 30 because that is all the template will currently handle.  Sometime over the next couple of months I will be increasing the template to 50.  In the meantime, if there are more facilities or features which people think are more or equally interesting or important, and hence should be included, perhaps just list them here, and when I get the template done I can add them in.
Peet Ern (talk) 09:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeronga Park is another I can see. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot properly remember Yeronga Park!  (I think I could guess as I know where Yeronga is, but it is a long time since I lived in Brisbane, . . .)  Can you give me an approximate from the top and from the left coordinate please.  See Template:Overlay#Brisbane (with grid turned on) for held on this. Peet Ern (talk) 11:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, its 160 down from the top and 280 from the left. - 22:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Peet Ern (talk) 01:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locations of facilities and features 

message: *Brisbane Grammar School
*Indooroopilly Island
*St. Joseph's College, Gregory Terrace
*Indooroopilly Golf Course
*Ironside Golf Course
*All Hallows
*Rocklea Golf Course
*Rocklea Markets
Peet Ern (talk) 11:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeronga Park is another I can see. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot properly remember Yeronga Park!  (I think I could guess as I know where Yeronga is, but it is a long time since I lived in Brisbane, . . .)  Can you give me an approximate from the top and from the left coordinate please.  See Template:Overlay#Brisbane (with grid turned on) for held on this. Peet Ern (talk) 11:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, its 160 down from the top and 280 from the left. - 22:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Peet Ern (talk) 01:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Possibly?

message: There is nothing in this article that gives an accurate population, just that it is larger then 1 million.  Could we get this info in here?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.216.166.246 (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article hasn't changed in the three hours between your posts.  <B>S<SPAN STYLE="font-size:87%">EO75</SPAN></B> [talk] 04:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population???? 

message: What about if we changed the Brisbane Metropolitan Area link from a redirect to Brisbane to it's own article. On this page we could once and for all clear up the distinction that some editors have rightly wanted to make on the difference between the stricter definition based on council borders with the wider metropolitan area definition. On this page we could also explain the recurring population issue once and for all. Greater Brisbane Area could then redirect to the metro area page. It has been done in Taiwan. - Shiftchange (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This would run counter to the situation with other Australian cities, and I expect most readers expectations, that is that the "Brisbane" article covers the entire metropolitan area. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This would reflect the differences between Brisbane and other Australian cities, ie, the local government boundary is the city boundary too. No-one in Ipswich thinks they are in Brisbane, but someone in Parramatta is considered to be in Sydney. At the same time there is a broader term "Brisbane Metropolitan Area" that as editors like Mvjs have been putting forward exists. I'm contending that in Brisbane's case a seperate page is appropriate because there are two different meanings for the word that has been source of confusion on related issues. Have I got the wrong idea or am I misunderstanding something? - Shiftchange (talk) 02:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be against making a separate article called "Brisbane Metropolitan Area" or "Greater Brisbane". I think it would cause more confusion than it alleviates. In my experience, Brisbane Metropolitan Area is a term, almost weasel word used by people trying to turn Brisbane into South East Queensland. I would support Brisbane in its current format, as is inline with all other Australian cities. It may be appropriate to put a  template at the beginning of the article, if one thinks there's confusion arising from this unclear term. MvjsTalking 02:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brisbane Metropolitan Area article suggestion