Talk:Ipswich, Queensland

message: There seems to be two entries: Ipswich, Queensland, and City of Ipswich, Queensland.
Would it be better to reallocate information between them: City of Ipswich to have information pertaining to all Ipswich LGA, while Ipswich, Queesland pertaining to the suburb of Ipswich itself?
Or maybe Ipswich, Queensland and City of Ipswich to be merged into Ipswich, Queensland, and having a separate article called Ipswich (suburb), Queensland  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmcker (talk • contribs) 04:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, there now seems to be three articles referring to what could be called the City of Ipswich, Qld. Ipswich(suburb), Queensland;  Ipswich, Queensland; and  City of Ipswich.  I basically agree but think Ipswich, Queensland should be merged into City of Ipswich, and leave Ipswich(suburb), Queensland as a separate page. Perhaps it's because the Ipswich, Queensland article almost presents itself as a suburb of Brisbane.  Ipswich is definately NOT a suburb of Brisbane!  The title of 'City of Ipswich' seems more correct and self-assured somehow.  When I figure out how to do it, I'll give it a go.  Unless someone else has some spare time, haha! Any thoughts?  Soozlepip (talk) 02:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What would be best and in line with similar articles (eg. Newcastle, New South Wales) is to keep City of Ipswich for the local government area.  The Ipswich, Queensland article should be about the suburb and the wider city. Once Ipswich (suburb), Queensland has been merged it should be re-directed to Ipswich, Queensland. - Shiftchange (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that makes sense.  Given how much information there is, it would be a lot easier that way and like you say, it keeps it in line with what appears to be the standard.  I think I will look to other cities to see how they set things out.  Unless someone else is doing something?  I don't mind having a go, but I'm still feeling my way around, so it won't happen immediately!   (And now I know how to reply properly on a talk page...) Soozlepip (talk) 05:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Seems no-one has started on the Ipswich (suburb), Queensland article, and since that article is mostly duplicated from Ipswich, Queensland, I've started redirecting from the former back into the Ipswich, Queensland article. Sb617  (Talk) 15:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The articles are about separate subjects. City of... is about the LGA, Ipswich is about the connurbation/general location and Ipswich (suburb) is about the CBD/suburb, in line with similar topics elsewhere (all capital cities plus about half a dozen others when I last looked into this). The main issue is defining the connurbation/general location, as the ABS doesn't - it includes it as part of the Brisbane urban centre. Orderinchaos 09:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So this means anything not about the central suburb needs to be excluded as off-topic. Most of the History, Economy, Housing, Sport sections and lists of schools has to be merged into the City of Ipswich article because when Wikipedia is talking about what people commonly consider Ipswich we refer to it as a local government area that is part of the Brisbane metropolitan area that we call Brisbane. We have to ignore any reference that says Springfield is in Ipswich a city in South East Queensland because in accordance with the alignment with ABS principle it is actually in the City of Ipswich which is part of Brisbane. - Shiftchange (talk) 03:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with this approach. Ultimately the difficulties in defining "Ipswich" as a connurbation according to any reliable source suggest that this article should be about the suburb, not the connurbation, which will require a few transfers of content if implemented. (Worth pointing out we infrequently have these sorts of problems elsewhere - Rockingham in WA is a classic example.) Orderinchaos 15:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

text: I have reverted some changes stating that Ipswich is a suburb of Brisbane and has been absorbed by Brisbane.  Both are innaccurate.  Ipswich is a suburb of Ipswich, and neither are a part of Brisbane.  The two cities (actually about 1/2 dozen or so cities) have grown together.  See my previous comment above for more on that.  LowKey (talk) 02:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple Entries

message: The page Isis (disambiguation) says (among other things) that "Isis may refer to: Ipswich, Queensland, a city in Australia", but there's no mention of that in this article.  Is this true?  Thanks for the help! — Catherine\talk 22:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Isis

message: No images are provided within the article. This is creating a less appealing state toward the article. Please anyone who have images add to the wikipedia commons database and add to the article.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lav90 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Images of Ipswich

message: Even though you didn't sign your post (hmmm I'm thinking only an idiot wouldn't sign their offensive post), I don't know who you are, but I do know that you have to mind your manners.
Who do you think you are? Only an idiot you say? Get over yourself please, it was a simple typo. --Orodreth 07:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply to History of Ipswich 

message: Not sure if I agree with the statement that Ipswich is located 40Km SW of Brisbane.  Brisbane CBD maybe - but the LGAs border each other.  I think the statement should be along the lines of "Ipswich is a sattalite city of Brisbane, located 40Km from the CBD" etc.  Yes it is its own city but it is widely considered part of the Brisbane metro area - like Paramatta is in Sydney.  There is no gap in suburbs between the two. 124.181.135.6 (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the two cities' respective histories "satellite city" is a misdescription. LowKey (talk) 04:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distance from Brisane 

message: There is misinformation in the history section regarding Queensland Rail.   
It even has a reference!
"Ipswich was an important river port for the Darling Downs in the 1840s and a regular steamer service from Moreton Bay was established in 1846. This service remained until the railway was extended from Brisbane in 1876 to take out the enormous coal deposits in the region."
Queensland Rail actually began in Ipswich extending west to Grandchester, with the intention of moving Darling Downs products into Ipswich, which were then transported to Brisbane via the Bremer and Brisbane rivers' steamers.
There's a lot more to it of course, and I think there should be a page especially for the Ipswich Railway Workshops, which I haven't found, yet, on WP.
I've only just joined, so I will do my best to correct this according to requirements, and advice is welcome...
Soozlepip (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Ipswich Section 

message: What exactly is meant by this uncited phrase/claim ? The oldest regional city ? Inland city ? (Brisbane would be the first of this).  I think second oldest city might be more appropriate.  --Biatch (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oldest "provincial city" in Queensland 

message: How can a toxic dump be the largest in the Southern Hemisphere, but only the second largest in Australia? --Marathone (talk) 11:30, 24 Aug 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It can't.  I already removed that before seeing this question, but note that the question has gone unanswered for a couple of months. LowKey (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest Toxic Dump 

message: Firing up the machine for an addition. I have noticed that in the History section the most recent major flood event is listed as the 1974 Brisbane Flood but an appeal hosted by Ipswich in England to raise money for flood assistance in Ipswich Qld is linked in External Links. Clearly this is 2 years out of date. Before I just go ahead and shove something into the article to at least mention the event and provide a link - have I missed something? Am I just suffering Domestic Blindness or is there really no mention of the 2011 Flood in this article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZWM (talk • contribs) 22:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No, go ahead, it seems a serious omission. Kerry (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  2011 Flood is Absent? 

message: I want to remind editors of this article that it is not here to promote the city.  A promotional tone has crept in and the addition of trivia muddies the important facts.  We only want the facts that will matter in the decades to come written in neutral prose with citations. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reminder 

message: Substituted at 19:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Nice map. Not. Sadsaque (talk) 01:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Great contribution. Not. Doctorhawkes (talk) 02:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Ipswich, Queensland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706105041/http://www.ipswich150.com.au/proud_past/ to http://www.ipswich150.com.au/proud_past
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110518194944/http://www.ipswich.qld.gov.au/about_council/council_history/index.php to http://www.ipswich.qld.gov.au/about_council/council_history/index.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090929210335/http://www.history.qr.com.au/stories/ to http://www.history.qr.com.au/stories/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Some of the content in this article seems to be confusing Ipswich (the urban area) which is the subject of this article with City of Ipswich (the local government area). This shows up in things like census data. I suggest that Ipswich Inner (SA3) is the best census data to use, not SA4 which is massively larger and doesn't really correspond to any article in Wikipedia. Kerry (talk) 08:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ipswich vs City of Ipswich