Talk:Civic, Australian Capital Territory

message: City Centre is not particularly long and the info in City Hill is mostly about historical info of City Centre. Looking for feedback before I do the merger and add a redirect for City Hill. Garglebutt / (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly oppose. Historical information is pertinent (this is, after all, an encyclopedia), and all the information there is indeed about City Hill, rather than Civic. Ambi 02:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the attention the Hill is getting with the potential for redevelopment, I think it is probably worth keeping as is. It is a notable city feature in its own right (with the flag pole and being a point in the Parliamentary triangle), similar to Commonwealth Place or Commonwealth/Kings Parks. I wouldn't suggest that those articles should be merged into the Parkes article. I say keep it. Perhaps reconsider after a decision to redevelop. Am prepared to consider views other people might have. -- Adz 11:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *The most recent news I've seen was the knock back of a fairly substantial redevelopment of the site that would have turned it into a large conglomerate of offices. Garglebutt / (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be kept as a seperate article. The hill exists and is a seperate entity from the rest of Civic. Glebe park and mny other parks in the area get their own articles. It is also very notable as a vertex of the parliamentary triangle. --Martyman-(talk) 21:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge City Hill article

message: While I'm here, what would people think about moving this back to Civic, Australian Capital Territory, where it was before? Even though it's officially known as City Centre, it's referred to almost universally as Civic, and I think it makes more sense for it to be at that name. This has been bugging me for a while. Ambi 02:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Use common names. No one refers to it as City Centre. Ambi 11:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... yes but - Wikipedia:Naming_conventions suggests "give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity".  Civic is not the official name, wouldn't appear on most maps and would not be known as such to non-residents with no connection to Canberra, ie the majority of readers.  I don't feel very strongly about it.--A  Y  Arktos 11:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand where you're coming from, but even people from outside don't call the area City Centre (except in the colloquial sense). The area is known in every way as Civic, and is likely to be more well known than "City Centre" to just about anyone. It's not a big deal, but it's something that's been bugging me for a while. Ambi 12:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: People from outside don't know it as City Centre either. It's a name that just isn't used. If people from outside are referring to the place, it's still going to be as Civic. Ambi 12:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Could you please point to the ABS Population? I've not found anything and I've tried every possible search terms? Bidgee (talk) 02:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well perhaps not everything. Go to 2006 Census QuickStats by location, select the Browse tab or use this link -> 2006 Census Data : View by location Then choose "StateSuburb" as type of location and you can figure the rest out yourself. You should get to this page 2006 Census QuickStats : City (State Suburb) MartinL-585 (talk) 09:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I'm wrong but I believe is common sense that most people (not residents, not ABS) would refer to this place as the City or Civic Centre of Canberra, not ACT... so why not call it City Centre, Canberra? Elekhh (talk) 13:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Either civic center or city center would be a more suiting article name......city just doesn't sound right, all local residents of a large town will refer to the CBD as the city, that doesn't mean city should be the article name. Wiki ian 01:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

text: In Wikipedia, EVERY Suburb in Canberra is named as follows: 'Suburb_name, Australian Capital Territory'. The official suburb name is 'City' - this is stated at the beginning of the article. You can create as many re-directs as you want if it helps to find the article but the article name must adhere to the naming convention of all other Canberra suburbs. MartinL-585 (talk) 03:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: City Centre --> Civic

message: We need to explain the location in terms of Griffin's plan - this relates to the suggested merge of city hill above.  Apparently Sulman was planning to surround city hill with twelve Sydney/Melbourne buildings.
The Sydney/Melbourne buildings were modelled on Brunelleschi's foundling hospital.  For many years they were all there was to Civic.
Icons no longer there include Rogers that became Youngs, the Civic Hotel, the Blue Moon cafe. Others ....?
Icons still there include Gus's (mentioned but not the planning battle he had to sit people outside.), Woodstock pizza, Fletcher Jones (mentioned - don't know when it came).  Others ....?
The height of new development was the Monaro Mall in the 60s.
Not sure what it is called now, but it was the Canberra Building Centre building and later the Advance bank building, and is above the Boulevarde  - I think it was the first tall office building to hit the 13 story limit and must have been built in the 70s.  Before that there was the T&G building with its clock and other tall buildings, presumably built in the 60s, on the west side of Civic near University Avenue.  
Perhaps we could have a timeline of development by decade - drafted here on the talk page as it will take a little research to pull it together.--A  Y  Arktos 19:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested article content and organisation 

message: Laughable attempts to describe the west of the city as an "arts precinct"; 
the Street Theatre
Mor redevelopment of the Griffin centre and the carpark next to it.
*City West Redevelopment - joint with ANU ,  --Martyman-(talk) 04:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Noughties 

message: Civic Square, Canberra is a stub and Ibeleive should be part of this article, seaparated only when it develops enough content if ever--A Y Arktos\talk 20:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections there. It's utterly non-notable apart from the fact that the Legislative Assembly and Canberra Theatre adjoin it - no one ever uses it if not going to either of those. Rebecca 03:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from Civic Square, Canberra 

message: This is ridiculous. Nobody calls it anything but "Civic". I know that sounds odd, but if we are going to discount odd place names in Wikipedia, there's a lot of places with odd names. I propose to move this article to the actual common name, but if anybody wants to quote wikipolicy, feel free.
And yes, I've read the discussion above. It's been several years now and Civic is even more entrenched. --Pete (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd also agree with moving this to Civic, Australian Capital Territory per WP:COMMONNAME Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thirded. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

text: Just move the article Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Damnit, it needs an admin to move it - I accidentally moved the talk page alone but the page itself needs an admin. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: moved. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

text: I have protected against moving until a consensus is reached to change to a different title. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that we use WP:COMMONNAME to determine article titles, I think that "Civic" is clearly the better option. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not fully convinced that 'Civic' meets the condition of being the most "commonly used name as determined by reliable sources" - you will not find Civic on any map or government list of names (such as Geoscience Australia or ACT Planning). However, Wikipedia style also says "Where an undisputed official name exists: - it should always be provided early in an article's introduction, bolded at its first mention and, where appropriate, italicised." So to that end, I've modified the lead paragraph to do just that. In which case, I can live with the title remaining as Civic, so long as it is clearly stated that it is not the official name. MartinL-585 (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine that every copy of the Canberra Times for decades has included articles using "Civic". Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name again