Talk:List of Canberra suburbs

message: *Aranda (2614)
*Belconnen (2617) - Belconnen Town Centre
*Bruce (2617)
*Charnwood (2615) - Charnwood Centre
*....
Martyman 08:45, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: We could. I'd sooner see the postcard page redirected here, rather than merged. Does anyone care about having postcodes in an encyclopedia? Ambi 09:08, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I just looked it up and found a bunch of them for other countries - Lists of postal codes Cfitzart 05:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Belconnen (district)|Belconnen]]

message: I added a South Canberra district and moved a few other suburbs around. I feel that the list now more accurately matches the actual districts in Canberra. Unlike bigger cities that have local government for districts and therefore legal definitions, Canberra's districts only serve as geographical identifiers. Martyman 10:58, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I just got them from that official site (operated by the ACT government, I think?). Strangely, I can't find the URL at the moment. Ambi 11:22, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, actually I have found the districts listed differently using the same base map on different ACT government webpages. I am not sure there are very strong rules about them. For example some sites list north and south canberra as Cenral Canberra. It seems very strange to me to refer to any suburbs South of Lake Burley Griffin as North Canberra. I would trust the tables you get to after clicking through the (incorectly labled) maps here . Martyman 11:36, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed Districts 

message: 1. The proposal is that references to commercial centres, be they shopping centres such as Jamison or Kippax or more general areas such as Belconnen, Dickson and Manuka, be consistently named centre name, Australian Capital Territory.
2. Where the centre is sufficiently small or not noteworthy enough to substantiate a separate article, any references should point back to the suburb rather than redlinked.
Agree - Let's end this debate and get on with producing a well structured group of articles. Garglebutt / (talk) 02:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that despite the comments on your user page, you continue to be overly involved in wikipolitics: Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board. Incorrectly naming me as suggesting a change to naming conventions when this page confirms otherwise is somewhat defamatory and reinforces my opinion on who is wasting time here. Garglebutt / (talk) 03:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're suggesting a change. At the moment, we don't add the suffix to shopping centres or redirect them to broader articles. You're suggesting that we should. Regardless of one's opinion on that, if implemented, it would equal a change. Ambi 10:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I'll assume that is a Disagree for 1. and a qualified Agree for 2. Garglebutt / (talk) 03:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's about right. Something like Manuka needs to be Manuka, ACT since Manuka is also a common name for a NZ tree species should have the ACT qualifier.--nixie 03:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No disagreement from me there.  Ambi 04:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I like the idea of having the commercial centres outlined there as well - I'm prepared to write articles for all of them ASAP if this is an issue. Ambi 04:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote for Commercial Centre naming convention

message: I've put a link to north lyneham in the suburbs page, because everyone who lives there thinks of it as separate to Lyneham (the link redirects to Lyneham, I wanted to redirect to the part of the article with the heading n.lyneham, dunno how to do it). "North lyneham" has 791 google hits btw  10:12, 7 September 2005 Cfitzart
:I've revised the link to jump to the North Lyneham section. Garglebutt / (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless North Lyneham is actually its own statistical local area, I don't think it should have its own article.--nixie 00:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I concur with nixie that North Lyneham should not have its own article and think itis appropriately placed as a section within the Lyneham article.  I appreciate there are very different characteristics between the two areas.  That applies also to other suburbs, for example old Red Hill (heritage area) and new Red Hill (post 1960) and "upper" and "lower" Narrabundah.--AYArktos 00:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Cfitzart used the wrong terminology which has caused some confusion. It is within the Lyneham article. Cfitzart just wanted it separately mentioned and linked in the List of suburbs which has been done.  Garglebutt / (talk) 03:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes thats what I meant, sorry I didnt explain myself very clearly there, thanks for correcting the link. Cfitzart 08:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  North Lyneham 

message: I notice that Astrokey44 has helpfully marked the suburbs which, though surveyed, haven't yet been opened. What about Forde, though? I'm not sure if construction has started, but it was opened up for development this year (Harrison appears to be similar, but it isn't marked as such). And what's the situation with Crace? Ambi 14:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Planned suburbs

message: It looks like it should be part of Mawson, because it is on the other side of Hindmarsh drive and Athlon drive along with the rest of Mawson. It would probaly make more sense if it were part of Mawson. However, Swinger hill is actually in Philip. (looking at the street directory) Astrokey44 00:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - I have reverted - apologies.  I did check the phone book and Swinger Hill businesses think they are part of Mawson but .... --AYArktos 01:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think youre right about the shops though, well Im only looking from the map, never been there, but they are just over the little red line, in Mawson. Maybe thats the shops called Swinger hill shops? (doesnt give a name on the map) Astrokey44 01:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have broadband you might find this website handy . i think you need to search by street name, although I haven't had a play around with it so not sure. It shows suburb and district boundaries and allows you to zoon in to street level. - I doubt it will have names of shops though. Adz 04:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Its a nice site, the ones I meant were in block 2 of this map (at the top)  Astrokey44 04:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problem here is that swinger hill is not an official ACT suburb. According to the ACT government naming conventions any Estate Names have no legal standing.  Therefore it is not to surprising that swinger hill does not neatly line up with any suburb boundries. The majority of housing is in Philip and it would appear that the shops fall accross the boundry in Mawson. Does Swinger Hill actuallt require it's own article? Martyman 02:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swinger hill 

message: There has obviously been a great deal of activity going on recently judging by the change of hue on this page.  Congratulations--AYArktos 12:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Full points to Astrokey44 for kicking this off - hopefully they'll be developed somewhat faster now. It'd be nice if somewhat could give them a bit of a look over though - there's a few grammar issues that need to be cleaned up (like uncapitalised street names). Ambi 12:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  An amazing number of blue links 

message: Howdy All. A table/grid of Canberra suburbs has been added at List of suburbs of Canberra/table. The quick primer on using it is this: Ideally everything in columns 1, 2, 5, and 6 should be blue; and everything in columns 3 and 4 should either be red, or if it is blue it should be checked to make sure that it is either a redirect page, or a disambig page that includes a link to the Canberra suburb of the same name, or includes a "see also" link to the Canberra suburb of that name. Canberra is in very good shape (everything in col 1 is blue, there is nothing in cols 5 and 6, only a few redirects in col 2 need to be added, nothing needs to be done in col 3, and only a handful of things need to be checked in col 4). Hope this is useful to you! -- All the best, Nickj (t) 04:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is quite helpful, but it'd be nice if it were moved out of the article space; could it be moved to a subpage of the talk page? I'm also a bit confused as to why, say, Acton, Australia shouldn't redirect to Acton, Australian Capital Territory or be a disambiguation page; this seems like a potentially helpful redirect to me. Ambi 06:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Gilmore, Australia is a duplicate of Gilmore, Australian Capital Territory --Martyman-(talk) 07:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means, add the Acton, Australia → Acton, Australian Capital Territory style redirects if you think they're helpful (only reason to exclude it was to cut down on the level of work for you folks). Also it's no problem moving the grid page (I just picked somewhere and hoped it would be OK - there was no real logic to it), so please feel free to move it to a more suitable location. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 00:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved the table into the Canberra wikiprject namespace at Wikipedia:WikiProject Canberra/Suburbs/Table. Just a quick question. What are columns 5 and 6 meant to show? Thanks, --Martyman-(talk) 00:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Columns 5 and 6 and for showing suburbs with North / South / East / West in their name, but the other way around; So for example if there was such a suburb as "North Acton, Australian Capital Territory", then columns 5 and 6 would show "Acton North" and "Acton North, Australian Capital Territory" respectively. The reason for this is that from Sydney I've found that many places with a point-of-compass-name are also known in the reverse order (e.g. some people call it "Strathfield South", others call it "South Strathfield"). This frequently leads to either red links (when the articles actually do exist, just under the other name), or to duplicated articles (due to different people using different names). The best way to avoid this is to have one article / stub at the official name, with redirects at these alternate names pointing to the correct name. Canberra however doesn't have any suburbs of this type, so in this case those columns are empty - but if you want to see an example of them being used, please see List of Sydney suburbs/table. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 22:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, thanks for that, makes much more sense now. --Martyman-(talk) 01:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  table / grid of Canberra suburbs added 

message: Looking at the www.gim.act.gov.au, some districts show differently to what is indicated in this artlcle,  Firstly what our article calls Districts, ACT government call Divisions.  ACT gov Districts correspoond to suburbs.
In the detail, particularly, Hume, Symonston and Oaks Estate are in Jerrabombera.  Pialligo is in Majura.  North Canberra and South Canberra are together known as Central Canberra.  Hall is its own Division. Tharwa is in Paddys River. GB 03:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Divisions