Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canberra/Archive 2

message: I will add the maps as I create them at User:Martyman/My Images/Suburb Infobox Maps. --Martyman-(talk) 06:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some basic rules about maps - they should show scale; where north is (I know it is implied); they should show date (the map after all is relevant to 2005 not 1945 and will probably not be accurate in 2065.  Maps should probably give the source of the underlying data - no wikipedian carried out the survey locating rivers and suburbs.  Should probably also provide some coordinate reference - latitude and longitude.  The source info could be included on the summary page.--A  Y  Arktos   (Talk) 20:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, two points here, you could have suggetsed this before I generated them all, you where involved in the discussion about the development of the infoboxes over a week ago. Also these are small maps inteded to display in an infobox. I don't believe they require all this info. The date can be derived by looking at the contribution page, north is assumed in a simplified map like this and no coordinate system is used because I am not claiming these are 100% accurate they are illustrative not authorative. If this is a retaliation for me questioning your copyright claims get over it. --Martyman-(talk) 21:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the same comments yesterday in relation to Astrokey44's map of Yarralumla.  I bowed out of the infobox discussion after the dismissive comments about demographic data being shown other than median house price.--A  Y  Arktos   (Talk) 07:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly agree with Martyman. Changes now, particularly those noted by AYArktos, are unnecessary. The maps fulfil their purpose, and are as good as any on Wikipedia. Ambi 08:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been suggested at Yarralumla's FAC that the infobox map should have a scale. I guess I could look into adding one and re-uploading all of them again. I can probably also add a date and a north indicator as per AYArktos's suggestion above. Is there anything else that people think should be changed on the infobox maps? Get in quick or you will be ignored... --Martyman-(talk) 23:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Maps

message: I have put Canberra on FAC. I'd appreciate help addressing comments as they arise.--nixie 23:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has just been tagged as featured - congratulations!--A  Y  Arktos   (Talk) 08:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Canberra on FAC

message: I have created two new stubs: William James Mildenhall and Mildenhall photographic collection.  The National Archives (NAA) factsheet has a link where you can search for digitised images from the collection.  Note, notwithstanding copyright issues the NAA states: If you use a digital image, the National Archives must be acknowledged as the source and the image must be identified by its item or image number.  Money is not an object: There is no permissions fee or charge for downloading, using or reproducing digital copies obtained from RecordSearch or PhotoSearch. If we are planning to use a significant number of these images I might set up a template, can you please let me know if there is any interest?--A  Y  Arktos   (Talk) 21:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: the recent discussion on the Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board has me worried about copyright. I'm thinking of changing the images I've put up to smaller versions. Perhaps if youre going to use an image, you should resize it to not larger than the size of the image which will appear on the page - 200 px or so? The sites you mentioned say that you have to complete permission forms. Astrokey44 23:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hold up here. As far as I know, the size has nothing to do with whether we can use these images or not; for what reason would you be decreasing the quality? However, if we're supposed to be asking for permission - and those images are not PD - then they have no place on Wikipedia. Ambi 23:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They are PD but they still say to ask permission. Maybe reduce it as sort of like a fair use thing.  Astrokey44 00:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mildenhall photographic collection 

message: * I can undertstand and live with the rationale for category:ACT rather than category:Canberra for most topics; similarly the renaming of articles such as History of Canberra with an associated redirect.  It may be that someone might want to break out an article on the History of the ACT separate to the history of the dominant city.  Some of the articles though I cannot see a rationale for a Canberra article and an ACT article, for example list of schools - just keep the ACT article or category.  --A  Y  Arktos   (Talk) 22:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If I thought it was possible to write a decent History of the ACt article without including Canberra then I might agree, bu there really isn't thta much else to cover. A couple of small towns and the creation of the ACT, that's about it. --Martyman-(talk) 22:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds awfully like a challenge :-).  I suspect there is quite a lot in those small towns, Picadilly circus, grazing leases, forests, national park creation, .... there is  an awful lot of the ACT that is not Canberra (I wonder what the percentage land area is?).  For the moment though I had better get on with my non-Wikipedia life --A  Y  Arktos   (Talk) 22:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually lookign through the list of articles now linking to the redirect page for History of Canberra I am thinking maybe it was not too much of a good idea after all. If you are feeling inspired to try and scrape up a decent article on ACT History it would be most appreciated. --Martyman-(talk) 22:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been reading up on the legal side of the creation of the ACT- and there probably is enough information for a stand alone ACT article, the tricky part will be separating Canberra from the ACT. But I think a :Category:History of Canberra is superfluous, and we should maintain the ACT history cat for historical articles. --nixie 23:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, sounds good. For now did you want to revert my edits to History of the Australian Capital Territory and move it back to History of Canberra and make History of the Australian Capital Territory the redirect for now until it has it's own article. I would do this myself but don't have access to delete the redirect at History of Canberra. --Martyman-(talk) 23:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: There's a thought. Though I am not sure if it is possible to duplicate an article without losing the edit history on one of them. --Martyman-(talk) 23:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I have moved it back. I once worked out how to duplicate histories, but I've since forgotten. I think cutting and pasting the history section from the ACT article to history of the ACT should suffice for a start, most of the Canberra article is specifically about Canberra anyway.--nixie 23:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the ACT as distinct from History of Canberra 

message: I have spent a bit of time fixing up the Yarralumla, Australian Capital Territory article again and want to put it up as a FAC again. I would appreciate it if people could proof read it and make any suggestions for changes before I do that. Thanks. --Martyman-(talk) 12:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to apologise in advance if any of my comments seem harsh; I'm notoriously picky about wanting featured articles to be as good as they can be, and this is a great article anyway. Firstly, it could really do with a lot of attention to the prose - particularly in the earlier parts of the article (I can't see much wrong at all with the new additions). Waterfall Gully had the same problem before Cyberjunkie and Michaelgabrielsen gave this a lot of work - and it came out looking a very great deal better. Secondly, there's a big area of white space beneath the table of contents; would it be possible to get rid of this somehow? Thirdly, the demographics section could do with a bit more detail (c.f. Waterfall Gully). Fourthly, it'd be nice to see booth results for territory elections in the politics section, as well as some information about how the area usually votes; it'd be nice to prosify the issues section too. Finally, I'm not sure that the table is necessary - I think a paragraph or two would better convey embassy information; does anyone else have any thoughts on this? Ambi 13:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that showing the international flags is really good if you want to get it featured. It should be emphasised about the embassies in the intro - the most interesting thing to someone reading from America/UK/Germany/Canada etc is probably that their embassy to Australia is located there. Astrokey44 14:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yarralumla FAC and Suburb Infoboxes 

message: I've created this Belconnen Suburbs template and was wondering whether people thought it would be of any use. I think it would clutter things a little too much if it were to be used on short stub pages, but it could be used on longer stubs and articles. I have placed it on the Aranda and Belconnen Town Centre pages to test run. It could also be used on the Belconnen (district) page instead of the long list of suburbs that is there at the moment. I got the text from that list, so it didn't take long to create and I won't be the least bit offended if people think that it is a waste of space. If you like it, it wouldn't be hard to whip up others for the other districts Adz 06:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would see this template as being useful to replace the awful list of suburbs on the district pages. Not too sure about on suburb pages though. I think it might be pointless clutter realy. We have a link to the district and all surounding suburbs already in the new infobox. Also seems a bit irrelavent for the town centre/group centre pages. PS. It would probably be best not to roll out the infobox until I have uploaded the smaller maps for all of the suburbs, otherwise we will ahve to go through them twice. --Martyman-(talk) 07:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Looks good, might be better with commas separating the suburbs? Astrokey44 08:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Something seperating the suburbs probably would look better. Also I probably wouldn't list the town centre in the same line as the suburbs, maybe a second line listing the group centres and town centre of the district? --Martyman-(talk) 08:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What he said. Using | characters as dividers would work, and I think there needs to be a second line linking to Belconnen, Jamison and Kippax centres. Ambi 11:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried that but it all went pear shaped. I think the coding is all wrong because when I tried creating new rows for town centres and group centres, they turned into collumns. I didn't get time to sort it out. I'll have a bit more of a play with it when I get some time. (I'll be away for the next few days, but might be online at my brother's house).
I like it, but I think it'd be overkill on the individual suburb pages, especially as the infoboxes are introduced. | is probably a better than a comma to separate the names.--nixie 09:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate it. Adz 14:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the way it looks now. Divided up (with |) and the extra information split out to seperate lines. --Martyman-(talk) 21:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The new table is excellent - thank you. :) I wouldn't mind seeing it on individual suburb pages; I think it could be a useful means of navigation. Ambi 08:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of suburbs template 

message: As mentioned above volunteers are required to make the new infoboxes as the maps become available. List yourself and a district:
*Peta- North Canberra Done
*Martyman- South Canberra Done
*Adz - I'm happy to help, but as noted above, will be away for a while, so realistically, won't get around to it until the weekend after this weekend. That said, I'd be happy to split Belconnen with someone and do half. Or I could do a smaller district like Gungahlin. ... I really don;t mind what I do, so how about I just work on whatever still needs working on by the end of next week. 
*Ambi - North Canberra and/or Belconnen, as long as someone else can do the maps
* Gimboid13 - Weston Creek - Done.
*Garglebutt - Suburbs at random. Done so far: Macquarie, Bruce. Garglebutt / (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not start rolling these out until we are absolutly certain about the excact way it should be done. Notice there has been suggetsion below to add area to the infobox, also what do people think is the best way to put references into the infobox. I think we need to reference allhomes, the census is less important becasue any high quality suburb article will already have a reference to it. --Martyman-(talk) 00:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The maps are already online for North Canberra, Gungahlin and Belconnen, I should have the rest up some time soon. --Martyman-(talk) 07:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: District volunteer list

message: I've created User:Adz/CanberraSuburbsInfo where I am creating a list of suburbs containing area and date settled. The info is obtained from an ACT Gov't publication of suburb maps. (source provided at user page). I thought that putting them all in the one place in simple format would be the quickest way to get them up. Then people can access the info as they work on suburbs. Adding the info to each suburb would take a long time. I hope it is helpful. Martyman, would it take much to change the info box to include area info?  Adz 14:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. I wonder how much work it would be to add population figures from the 2001 census to the list. It is easy to add extra fields to infoboxes as long as it isn't in wide use yet, though even that can be worked around by using  and making the field optional. The question is does everyone agree that the extra information is worth increasing the size of the infobox further. Personaly I think adding area is probably a worthwhile addition. --Martyman-(talk) 21:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made a template to use google to find the 2001 census data for a given suburb name, I think it should be fairly reliable. I will add it to your list of suburbs, hopefully you don't mind. --Martyman-(talk) 21:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: It turns out for some reason google doesn't appear to have a full index of the ABS census pages. So the template fails to work for some suburbs. I will continue adding it anyway and hopefully figure out a different way to get the backend of the template to work. --Martyman-(talk) 22:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Would this be difficult to do manually? Ambi 23:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not particularly. I just didn't feel like putting in the effort and thought I would see if it was possible with a template. It is not like this is a page for public display anyway. --Martyman-(talk) 00:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow! That's great Marty, I don't mind at all. I'll keep adding the area for the rest of the suburbs. If I suddenly stop its because my partner (who isn't a wiki-fan (mainly because it takes up so much of my time)) has threatened to throw my lap top out the window. We'll see how I go. -- Adz 01:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information about are of suburbs and dates settled 

message: OK guys, should we add area to the infobox before we roll out? Any other last minute changes? --Martyman-(talk) 07:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not fussed over area in the infobox, it's not essential or really useful information unless it's put in context. I think refs in the infobox should probably just be sourced in the article, so we don't need to worry about including links in the infobox.--nixie 08:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think including the area gives some context to the suburb. area gives the suburb. It demonstrates that Canberra suburbs are small, but it also allows comparison between suburbs. - I'm not precious about it but I don't think it would hurt. I think it is the sort of information that it encyclopedic and that you would expect to be able to find in an encyclopedia. If the majority thinks differently then I can live with that too. -- Adz 13:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I think it should be in the article, just not in the infobox.--nixie 13:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I lean more towards including it than not. We will see what everyone else thinks. --Martyman-(talk) 13:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy either way; it's usually in the lead section of most articles and thus fairly prominent anyway, but wouldn't necessarily hurt to have it in the infobox either. Ambi 00:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

text: It's a kind of interesting stat but I don't think it belongs in the body of the article. In the infobox is a good place. Garglebutt / (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Right, that doesn't work as well as I thought it would. Will someone just be authoritarian and and decide if this should be in or not. I am leaning back towards leaving it out again. --Martyman-(talk) 08:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I have been including places on the far side of the lake. Though there may be some cases where the lake could be mentioned instead... --Martyman-(talk) 03:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final Implementation of Infoboxes 

message: Congratulations to everyone on Canberra getting featured. I am going to suggest we make the newly forked History of the Australian Capital Territory article our next collaboration. Let's see if we can get it up to featured article standard as well. --Martyman-(talk) 13:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the intention to merge this article with History of Canberra or to run it as a separate article? In which case, I think we might be better off trying to bring Australian Capital Territory up to scratch first. Also, shouldn't we wait for concensus before we change the 'FA effort notice' on the project page? -- Adz 13:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) Separate article. (2) Martyman and I sort of decided that someone should just choose so we didn't get bogged down by nobody making a decision. I don't think it matters whether the ACT or ACT history article gets done first, more that likely they will both get worked on over the course of the month. (3) Another Wikiproject Canberra participant can pick next time.--nixie 13:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care, if the majority would rather work on the ACT article then we can do that. We just thought we would skip the whole time wasting voting thing and just nominate an article. --Martyman-(talk) 21:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with this, though it would be appreciated if someone could set out a structure we could use; the current one seems inadequate if this is ever to become long enough to be featured. Ambi 00:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

text: If my comment above is what you were referring to when saying that there seems to be friction then perhaps i should clarify. I don't really mind an unstructured approach as long as everybody else is happy with it. My thinking was that a more inclusive process might result in more people participating in the projects. If however, its a matter of needing to get the ball rolling in order for people to hop on board rather than waiting for people to suggest ideas - as seemed to be the case - then I don't have a problem with it. I guess the nature of collaborative exercises is that they either happen or they don't. - the reason I haven't been contributing a great deal to the history article incidentally doesn't have anything to do with the process but has more to do with a) not having a great deal of time a.t.m., and b) not having a great deal of interest in the subject matter. (I've been thinking about trying to create some activity on the Brisbane project for a while and expanding some of the stubs there - although I need to find the time).  Anyway, the point was that I'm willing to take a relaxed approach to it if others are, and please don't read any 'friction' into my comment above.  Cheers. -- Adz 07:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested New Collaboration

message: I have nominated Yarralumla at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, hopefully it gets up this time around. --Martyman-(talk) 10:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yarralumla up at FAC 

message: After woking on History of the ACT article, I think that we should compile a list of the historic/heritage buildings in the ACT- with the goal of writing articles for some of the more significant homesteads and so on. It'd probably be named List of historic buildings and structues in the Australian Capital Territory. There are good resources here , here- this list is also very good if you want to know the heritage places in a suburb for a suburb article and here, if anyone wants to help put the list together or to write articles on any of the buildings.--nixie 01:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: List of historic buildings

message: I have created a wikiproject notice template . I copied it off of wikiproject Melbourne. It can be placed on the talk-pages of pages associated with the Canberra wikiproject. --Martyman-(talk) 10:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also have created a list of Canberra wikiproject articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Canberra/Articles. --Martyman-(talk) 00:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject Notice 

message: I can see the need for a Natural History of the Australian Capital Territory article. This could probably be kicked off with some copy and pasting from a few different places. What do people think? --Martyman-(talk) 06:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Article Suggestion 

message: I've twice reverted an edit at Tuggeranong Town Centre where an annon user has added what I consider to be unencyclopedic and unsubstantiated comments about the security guards. I can't revert again without breaking the 3 reverts rule. Could people please keep an eye on it. (I suspect that the user is a young person who have been picked on by the security guards - whose attitude towards young people I suspect is no different to other security guards in shopping centres all over the country - and possibly the rest of the western world). -- Adz 09:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pls keep an eye on [[Tuggeranong Town Centre]]. 3R rule 

message: OK, after hijacking this thread for a bit, I should try to bring it back on track. Now that History of the Australian Capital Territory has been put up as a featured article candidate (let's keep our finger crossed there aren't any huge objections), we should try to pick a new wikiproject focus article. There seems to be a few votes for Walter Burley Griffin and I think that also trying to create an accompanying Griffin Plan (or something equivalent) would be a good idea. What do people think? --Martyman-(talk) 12:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, Griffin would be a good choice. I think it might be a good idea to hold off on the spin off article until we see how much room discussion of the plan takes up in the Griffin article - we can always move it out of there subsequently.--nixie 12:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also agree. We can start with Walter Burley Griffin, with Griffin Plan being a likely spinoff article (just as there were umpteen spinoff articles from history of the Australian Capital Territory). Ambi 12:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back to featured article selection 

message: The ACT Government has a site at http://www.gim.act.gov.au/actLocate/index.dwt where you can create maps of the ACT with a number of layers, customising the view and the area.  It thereby gives you information about land use, distances between features ...  The maps are copyright so you would be using it for research purposes unless you sought permission:
Copyright of material contained on this site is owned by the Australian Capital Territory.
You may download, display, print and copy, any material at this website, in unaltered form only, for your personal use or for non-commercial use within your organisation.
Except as permitted above you must not copy, adapt, publish, distribute or commercialise any material contained on this site without the ACT Government's permission.
Requests for further authorisation should be directed to Customer Services and Information. Email address: copyright@act.gov.au
Notwithstanding the restriction, it still seems to me an exciting resource--A  Y  Arktos 19:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maps of the ACT 

message: Started this Canberra storms December 2 2005 about Friday's storms. Does anyone have a photo of the dark clouds on that day, or of some of the damage? Astrokey44 14:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't think the storm was that notable.  There are some trees down in Commonwealth Park - very few - even more left standing.  If anything I think it was more an article for wikinews.  Will anyone remember in a few week's time?  Of course the family of the man who was killed by a tree will.  More than 20 people have died on Canbera's roads this year and we don't have an article on each incident or other incients with premature loss of life - for example the house fire in Canowindra, New South Wales.  Similarly three Piper Chieftens have crashed this year (with loss of life)...--A  Y  Arktos 19:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to be disparaging, and I don't particularly object if it stays, but even though I wasn't in Canberra that day (left to head back to Victoria that morning), I'd be inclined to agree with AYArktos. Ambi 22:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it did affect quite alot of the city rather than road incidents which affect individuals. They also said it was the worst disaster to hit the city since the bushfires, and I think I heard damage estimates in the $10m-$20m range Astrokey44 22:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  I was in the City at the time (was being battered by wind and rain on my bicycle) and I don't think the storm was notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. Since there hasn't been a significant disaster of any kind since the bushfires, any disaster would have be 'the worst', so that description doesn't really count for much. There was a bit of damage, and one person was killed, but the storm was no more significant than the storms that hit Sydney every summer, or the floods that hit the northern rivers of NSW/Gold Coast every other year. Those incidents don't all have individual articles. A storm of the magnitude that damaged just about every roof in Sydney may be significant, but even then, it would be difficult to write an article aout it. In the case of the Canberra storm on Friday, what is there of encyclopedic value to write? You're not going to catalogue every street on which a tree fell and every location where a house was damaged. ... I'm not convinced that it adds anything of value to Wikipedia. -- Adz 04:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. I suggested on the talk page there that an article Severe storms in Australia should be created which would cover it, and Ive copied most of it across there, as well as the talk page. Astrokey44 10:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Storm 

message: How are we going on the suburb infoboxes? I have got to get around to re-doing most of the maps in the new format with scale bar, etc. I think from looking at the list further up the page we still have a couple of districts left to do. Anyone feel like jumping in and lending a hand?
Still left to do are:
*Woden - partially done
*Belconnen - partially done
*Gungahlin - not done
The advantage of getting all of these done is that then even our stub articles will contain a useful infobox with easy navigation etc. (which puts us way in front of the other AU wikiprojects). --Martyman-(talk) 01:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the plan for the unbuilt suburbs, do they get a box too? Also I started checking to see if all the suburbs were in :category:Suburbs of Canberra, I think that there are some that are still missing from the cat, if somone wants to chase up the stragglers that would be really good.--nixie 02:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone through the whole list and categorised all the stragglers - there were about seven or so. I left the unbuilt suburbs, though, as it looked like they'd been deliberately left alone by whoever categorised Gungahlin originally - perhaps there could be a subcat for them? Ambi 08:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My map doesn't include any unbuilt suburbs, I would suggest not bothering with the infobox for them yet. --Martyman-(talk) 09:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suburb Infoboxes 

message: Congratulations to everyone involved, History of the Australian Capital Territory was just featured. Lets see if we can get Walter Burley Griffin there too. --Martyman-(talk) 05:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the Australian Capital Territory 

message: I propose moving all of the Canberra districts back to their proper names rather than their disambiguated +(district) names. Off the top of my head Belconnen and Gungahlin have suburbs by the same name. I would suggest using disambugation text at the top of the district page for these two cases linking to the respective suburbs. Comments? --Martyman-(talk) 00:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections here. There's really not a whole lot of need to have the district tag. Unlike the towns and suburbs, I think more confusion amounts from having the district disambiguator. Ambi 01:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I concur with the proposal--A  Y  Arktos 01:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved these now, (except Tuggeranong which needs a admin) now I have the fun job of going through all the articles and fixing all the links so they don't go to the redirects. fun, fun, fun --Martyman-(talk) 10:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed up Tuggeranong. :) Ambi 10:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  District Names 

message: I have switched Lake Burley Griffin over to the latest cite style as a test. I am not convinced it is the ultimate solution but it does have a few advantages over the current ref3 system we have been using. The biggest advantage is the auto generated references section which will automatically re-order when the text is moved around. --Martyman-(talk) 00:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Cite Style 

message: Walter Burley Griffin has improved significantly from a short article with at least 5 factual inaccuracies (by my recollection) to a good article - but it still needs polishing and some more research to be ready for FAC. In the interest of maintaining momentum and to correspond with the new year I think we should pick a new workup article. Suggestions?--nixie 14:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: current suggestions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Canberra/Featured workup are: Parliament House, Canberra / Australian Capital Territory / 2003 Canberra bushfires (This would be a good one for around next March, that's when the Coroner's final findings are due, which should wrap up any potential loose ends.--nixie 05:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I personally am in favour of working on the FCC, or we could work on the 2003 bushfire as there will be a fair amount of coverage for the third anniversary on the 18th of this month with the new memorial and I think a planned boycott by affected residents --A  Y  Arktos 19:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know where I could find out more details about the fire anniversary activites, it might be good to get some photos. I'd prefer to leave any attempt at FA on the fire article until after the coroners report is out. I'm in favour of working on something that we have a good chance of finishing - I think Parlimant House would be a good choice - and we could have it ready to appear on the anniversary of the openening on May 9.--nixie 10:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd personally go for the bushfires, which certainly needs it (one of the worst articles I ever wrote, though it didn't help that I never finished it). That said, does this mean that we're giving up on getting Walter Burley Griffin featured? Ambi 10:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WBG needs someone to go and sit and the NLA and do a day or two of research, I don't think it could be described as comprehensive as is. I will elaborate on the talk page if anyone wants to follow it up in the near future, also some pics from the US would be a nice addition and there haven't been any advances on that front.--nixie 11:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can point me in the right direction on the talk page, I'll be back in Canberra in a fortnight, after which time I'll have a month or so of sitting around with not much to do, so I'll be happy to spend as long as is necessary at the NLA. If you know what specific things in the US we need images of, we may be able to get in touch with individual photographer Wikipedians in that area and see if they can help. Ambi 11:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I like that idea. Australian Capital Territory shouldn't be too hard, would kind of complete things, and would provide a good template for the other states to work from later. Ambi 13:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be good to have an example for the other states to follow. Also, at present I don't think there are any FA's on subnational entities, although I saw California on peer-review a week ago.--cj | talk 14:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ACT will have alot of overlap with Canberra, which may hinder things at FAC, but I'm willing to give it a go.--nixie 18:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New workup

message: You might find this site useful: http://www.bushfirerecovery.act.gov.au/
There will be a memorial unveiled at the new Stromlo Forest Park (Deek's Drive as was) on the 18th.  Here's the invite - 10am for 10.30am .--A  Y  Arktos 11:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bushfire anniversary 

message: Hi, could an admin please help with renaming Canberra Casino to Casino Canberra, the latter being its correct name, see article illustration.  I believe I can't move it because there is a redirect in place.  Thanks--A  Y  Arktos 19:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you :-) --A  Y  Arktos 23:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casino Canberra page rename 

message: Ive been trying to find information on the history of nightclubs/pubs for Nightlife in Canberra but it has been difficult as most of their sites dont have much history information and theres not much info on places which used to exist. Anyone know information on old clubs/pubs or when current places opened - what was canberra's first nightclub or pub for instance? -- Astrokey44|talk 03:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nightclubs 

message: Could people please take a look at Brand Depot and Canberra International Airport#Recent expansion. I have two concerns. The first is that that article reads as if the place is already open - which it isn't - and secondly, it reads to me a little too much like advertising. I think its only marginaly notable in any case and tend to think that it is advertising disguised as an encyclopedic entry. (I tend to think that articles about shopping centres should only refer to shops in the general sense without naming brands - so 'fast food outlet' instead of 'KFC' and Supermarket instead on 'Woolworths' so perhaps I'm biased - which is why I'm asking for other people's opinions.  
User:Webfive who created the Brand Depot article and linked to it from Canberra International Airport and Outlet mall (as an external commercial link) also appears to have written the entire Snow Foundation article which reads like a promotional brochure. While Terry Snow may have set up a charitable foundation, he is also running a commercial enterprise (the Airport) and I'm concerned about WP being used as a means of promoting it.  
Do others share the same concern? and if so, what should we do about it? I'm inclined to put Brand Depot up for AfD, and remove reference to its name (although not the fact that the development is occurring itself) from Canberra Airport. Snow Foundation should probably be cleaned up.  -- Adz|talk 23:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Snow Foundation certainly does warrant cleaning up - perhaps it might be an idea to write an article on Terry Snow (who is notable), and merge the information about his organisation (which IMHO isn't notable) into that article. I think Brand Depot could be merged into Canberra International Airport, and should be delinked from everyone it's been spammed to. I don't think its name needs to removed from the airport article, though. Ambi 23:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I've cut most of the unencyclopedic content from the Snow Foundation article. The Brand depot article should be redirected to the airport article, and if anyone wants to rewrite it when it is actually complete they can then do so.--nixie 00:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments sought - commercial article? 

message: Hi 
I have been encouraged to announce myself here.
I am willing to put insome work on upgrading the Canberra suburb pages.
I will have a go at adding Geology information.
Do people agree that Yarralumla is a good example to folloow?
GB 09:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi again Graeme, welcome to the Canberra Wikiproject. The Yarralumla, Australian Capital Territory article is one of two wikipedia featured articles about suburbs (the other is Waterfall Gully, South Australia). Both of these suburbs have a lot of history and details that make it much easier to create a decent length article. I wouldn't expect too many other articles on Canberra suburbs would be able to approach the same level of detail, though please feel free to prove me wrong. There has been the feeling recently that it would be a good idea to start by fleshing out our articles about Canberra's districts before attempting the multitude of suburbs articles, of course what you choose to work on is always up to you. --Martyman-(talk) 10:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another contributor 

message: I've changed the ACT related stubs to use this picture, since there are probably copyright issues with the flag and so it is consistent with the other states. It looks OK, but if anyone can think of a better free illustration they should go ahead and change it.--nixie 03:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub switch

message: Jerrabomberra has recently been created. I moved it to Jerrabomberra, New South Wales as per other locations in NSW. The Canberra infobox doesnt really suit it because of the district heading and the 'canberra suburbs near'  -- Astrokey44|talk 13:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess there are three ways around that. Either we could make a generic suburb infobox, which is not very likely to be acceptable to all australian contributors, or we could make a Queanbeyan suburb infobox, or we could modify the Canberra infobox with optional parameters so that it is better suited to other cities. --Martyman-(talk) 21:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe there should be a generic one. Are there any other suburb infoboxes currently on suburbs for other cities? -- Astrokey44|talk 14:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Waterfall Gully, South Australia uses one based on our one (though it is hard coded, not using a template). Not sure if there are any others. --Martyman-(talk) 08:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jerrabomberra

message: It looks like the author whose book had been used as a reference on Ngambri and mentioned in the history of canberra talk page has responded to these pages herself. See  and Talk:Ngambri  -- Astrokey44|talk 14:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ngambri 

message: I am not exactly happy about this edit. Shoul dwe revert it? --Martyman-(talk) 13:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so. Perhaps put a note on the talk page asking editors to discuss further edits on the talk page. Either that, or drop the editor a note on their talk page. -- Adz|talk 13:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I could see there may be a problem with internal spamming by a wikiproject that overlaps a lot of other areas, but the Canberra wikiproject includes almost all the editors who work on articles about Canberra and the stub templates are not on the more popular articles anyway. Thanks for reverting the changes. --Martyman-(talk) 23:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  template edit