Talk:List of Australian capital cities

message: I somehow doubt this.  Canberra is the seat of the federal government and the capital city of the nation.  The ACT does not have a capital city as such.  Canberra is the only city in the ACT and therefore by default is the informal "capital", but formally that is not its status.  JackofOz 02:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No that's incorrect. Canberra is the capital of the ACT as well. JRG 06:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In which sense? It could be called the capital simply because it is the seat of government, but it is not formally declared the capital, is it? It does seem a bit bizarre to describe Canberra as the captial of the territory that was created only to contain Canberra. JPD (talk) 11:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it doesn't. There are a number of small settlements outside Canberra city which are still part of the ACT. But I can't find a on the net showing that Canberra is the ACT's capital, although that's what everyone's always been taught... JRG 14:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure - just because it seems bizarre doesn't mean it's wrong, but what do you mean by "outside Canberra city", anyway? I don't the extent of the city is defined in any legal sense. For what it's worth, I've never been taught that Canberra is the ACT's capital. I have been taught that London is the UK's capital though, and that has never been proclaimed either. JPD (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The one thing for sure is that Canberra is not the ACT. I have seen somewhere (ABS maybe?) the ACT and Canberra referred to separately and there is a population of about 400-500 people that live in the ACT but not in Canberra. Whether it has been proclaimed as the capital of the ACT I'm not sure - maybe it is just a de facto capital, rather than a capital de jure. JRG 22:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Since I started this debate, I can say that I lived in Canberra for over 27 years and I never once heard it referred to as the "capital of the ACT".  Afaik, the ACT simply has no capital, because it so closely overlaps, in a population sense, with Canberra.  Would you assist us all by providing a reference for that last statement?  --  JackofOz 08:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Canberra the Capital of the ACT?

message: I am bemused by the separate columns for "date of statehood"  and "capital since".  Was this table transplanted from America, where several states have had a number of capitals ?   In the case of Australia, none of the capitals have ever been moved and in every case the current capital was the first substantial settlement.
What is the basis for the claim that South Australia had "statehood" in 1842,  but Adelaide is the capital since 1856 ?    The reality would seem to be almost 100% the opposite of this,   as Adelaide has been the "capital" of South Australia since its foundation ( which I believe was in 1836 ),  but it had "statehood" ( in the sense of responsible self-government ) in 1856.   Being the capital preceded the statehood,  not the other way around as the table seems to imply.
And how did Queensland have "statehood" in 1859 but Brisbane only became the capital in 1860 ?
Unless someone has a cogent objection,  I will change it soon.Eregli bob (talk) 08:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the dates are wrong. But what are we basing this idea of statehood on? If it were proclamation they aren't states but colonies/provinces, then South Australia it is 1836. Otherwise statehood was attained at federation or 1901. Also, Adelaide was founded in the same year, I don't know where the editor's got these values from. I just need some sort of guidance about the direction I should follow when editing this. 42.241.149.67 (talk) 11:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dodgy claims