Talk:List of cities in Australia

message: The list should use the full names of the Australian states, rather than abbreviations. -- Mic
Would it be too much to ask to put a list of cities here, rather than a list of cities, towns and suburbs? -- Tim Starling 01:19, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)
*I think cities only, as the title suggests, is fair.  Do we list city councils or major metropolitan areas?  My suggestion is the latter.  --Chuq 01:41, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There is very little point replying to 15-year-old discussions as current context is ggenerally not applicable. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  List 

message: I posted a link to this page on a forum to sort out a discussion about the relative populations of Newcastle and the Gold Coast.  I received a reply from someone who checked out the articles on the cities themselves, and found conflicting information.  What official source should we use for populations (ABS census stats, ABS estimates..?)  We should try to update all related population figures each time new figures come out. -- Chuq 04:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newcastle / Gold Coast 

message: Surely, a place with fewer than 100,000 inhabitants can scarcely be called a city.—preceding unsigned comment by 80.189.215.97 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 15 December 2005   (UTC+11 hours ) 
**Please see the Australian section of the article on towns for further information.  In Australia, a city is proclaimed by the responsible state or territory Government.  Perhaps we should update the Australian paragraph at City#The_difference_between_towns_and_cities. --A  Y  Arktos 20:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of inhabitants

message: Although the listed population of Sydney does not match that given as the headline figure for the Sydney metropolitan area by the ABS source, that headline figure includes the population of the Central Coast (which is listed as a separate city on the list). Realistically this population should not be counted twice. If you check, the metropolitan area total minus the Central Coast total gives the figure listed in the table. 203.217.79.19 10:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population of Sydney 

message: The other night I added Logan to the list of cities. In terms of population, it is the twelfth largest and should be input between Hobart and Geelong. See Special Case LGA Codes at the bottom of http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/9f0b5791ed98061fca256f1900128409?OpenDocument DB 11:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a list of city populations as defined by the ABS, not populations of Local Government Areas. Logan LGA is part of the Brisbane Statistical Division, the population of which is given as a whole. Similarly, the list does not give the populations of Blacktown in Sydney (~200,000) or Lake Macquarie (~160,000), counted as part of Newcastle, for example. - Randwicked Alex B 12:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is the case that a "city" is defined by the statistical division, why is it that Tweed is connected to Gold Coast. This is clearly incorrect as Tweed is part of the Richmond-Tweed Statisitcal division. 60.226.143.84 10:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because at some point this was a list of urban areas, which counts the contiguous Gold Coast and Tweed Heads as one urban area. The list eventually got replaced with figures for the SDs and SLAs, but no-one bothered to change the names. - Randwicked Alex B 10:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: That is ridiculous reasoning. Tweed is situated in an entirely separate state jurisdiction. Can you please quote your ABS sources. 60.226.143.84 11:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me? 'Ridiculous reasoning'? It's God's own truth of what happened. But here's your link seeing you asked so nicely: Gold Coast-Tweed Heads, regarded as a single Urban Centre/Locality. - Randwicked Alex B 11:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Yes ridiculous reasoning. That data is dated 2001. It is out of date. This article is a joke. 60.226.143.84 11:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A joke? How so? - Randwicked Alex B 06:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of Logan 

message: The ABS presents three separate figures for most cities: The LGA population, the urban area population and the statistical division/district population (which is basically the metropolitan area figure). We only have one list at the moment, and as we haven't defined which figures we are using, it appears to have collected examples of all three. I propose the best solution is to have three lists, of the twenty biggest LGAs, urban areas and SDs respectively, with proper definitions according to the ABS given. - Randwicked Alex B 09:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will start with a list of the 50 biggest Urban Centres then (a nice round number), the latest figures for which are from the 2001 census. - Randwicked Alex B 13:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've completed two of the three lists; the LGA list will have to wait until tomorrow. If anyone has any questions about the definitions feel free to contact me. - Randwicked Alex B 15:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Looking at the PDF I used, it is from February 2005. It's possible they have released revised figures, I just used a copy already on my HD. I will take a look at the new figures. - Randwicked Alex B 02:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I checked, the figures for SDs match those in the relevant pdf . Are you looking at the LGA figures instead? - Randwicked Alex B 02:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The link on the first table goes here which appears to be 2005 LGA data. Garglebutt / (talk) 03:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the top page for the data set. The full pdf is available under the second tab. Maybe it should link straight to that tab (but not to the PDF itself...I hate that). - Randwicked Alex B 03:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah ok, so the last table hasn't been revised to 2005 yet which is where I got a bit lost. Garglebutt / (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Glad you like it. Now that the list is complete, perhaps it can be split off into a separate article List of cities in Australia by population as is done for other countries. This would de-clutter this page and allow us to concentrate on solving the problem of definition for this list and tidy up the rest of it. - Randwicked Alex B 16:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved the list to List of cities in Australia by population. - Randwicked Alex B 07:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List by population 

message: How is a city defined on this list? GSTQ took out some satellite LGAs which are cities in their own right, and removed some other LGAs which are also cities, yet left in some places, like Nowra in NSW, which is not a city in its own right but is the main centre of an LGA city, Shoalhaven. I propose we include all LGA cities in here that are not in the capital city, or else someone propose some verifiable and attributable way of including a city as defined in Australia. JRG 13:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: JRG is quite right that since the relatively recent LGA reorganizations in N.S.W. & Victoria there has been a problem dictating what makes a city in these two states. I have reverted the list to my latest edition because JRG's edition left the N.S.W. list inconsistent with Victoria's. I disagree with JRG's assertion that Nowra is not a city in its own right. Nowra had a city council before the amalgamations: therefore it has been gazetted as a city. Whether the establishment of Shoalhaven Council implicitly revokes Nowra's city status is rather conjectural and would probably be original research if we tried to come to a conclusion on Wikipedia. But one thing is clear: throughout Wikipedia, lists of cities are predicated not on areas presided over by councils, but by localities. "Shoalhaven" has no postcode or recognizable centre. It is a deliberately vague name chosen for political reasons. The article on Shoalhaven is analogous to the Rural City of Wangaratta, City of Bunbury or Port Pirie Regional Council articles, rather than the Wangaratta, Bunbury and Port Pirie articles (just to give a few examples), which it should be if it were to be consistent with the rest of the list. City status may depend upon a local council having been given the name "city" in the past. But the city consists of the locality, not the council.
GSTQ 03:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Why don't we just include the LGAs where they are not a city already in their own right? JRG 06:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really understand what you're saying. Use an example. But if you're saying let's include Shoalhaven because Nowra is not a city in its own right, then you're ignoring the locality basis for cities and also ignoring the fact that Nowra is a city in its own right. If we're going to say Nowra is not a city any more now it hasn't got its own city council then we'd better remove Armidale, Bathurst, Goulburn, Grafton and Tamworth from the list too, which seems absurd.GSTQ 21:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's include both - the Council cities and the locality cities. Nowra is part of the City of Shoalhaven now and should be listed under that. Grafton, and the others are all cities in their own right. If we don't include all of these, then the list becomes an arbitrary definition of what is and isn't a city. JRG 00:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't quite understand your comparison. Nowra is a city in the geographical sense, that is part of the LGA called the City of Shoalhaven. Grafton is a city in the same geographical sense, and is part of the LGA called Clarence Valley. In both cases the LGA is much larger than the city, but one  LGA has a name including the word "city" and the other doesn't (probably due to the proportion of the area that is urban). Yes, there are (at least) two notions of city here. One is the notion that the GNB uses, which is a town or centre of population rather than a LGA, although legal status is taken into account. Following the GNB's classification could hardly be described as arbitrary. The other notion is that of an LGA with "city" in the name. These days, the use of "city" in LGA names is becoming less and less related to the actual nature of the LGA, let alone the geographical notion of a city, but even if it were still relevant, there would be nothing wrong with restricting this list to GNB's notion of city, especially since LGAs are listed elsewhere anyway. JPD (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with JPD. This is meant to be a list of cities, not L.G.A's called cities. The peculiar New South Welsh government's use of the word "city" for certain councils reflects neither the use of the word by any New South Welshmen nor the use of the word elsewhere in the world, or elsewhere in Wikipedia. Perhaps some disambiguation is warranted, but surely not an inclusion of all L.G.A's called cities in this particular list. As for the Blue Mountains being included in New South Wales' list, there may very well be an L.G.A. called City of Blue Mountains, but the Blue Mountains article starts off as follows: "The Blue Mountains of New South Wales, Australia, are situated approximately 100 kilometres west of Sydney. They are a range of sandstone geological structures that reach to at least 1190 metres AHD (in the Lithgow area). The Blue Mountains are not as the name suggests a range of mountains but rather a series of cliffs surrounding a plateau with rugged eroded gorges of up to 760 metres depth..." No mention of their being a locality there, let alone a city. Yes, it does mention the municipality further down, but that's not what the article is about.GSTQ 23:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the LGA list, for reasons I describe above. LGAs are listed elsewhere, and not only is there no reason not to restrict this list to the geographical sense, it is what has been done with the other states. If this isn't clear enough, some explanatory text should be added to the top of the list (not just the top of the NSW section). JPD (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't agree with you, JPD, so I did a bit of searching - turns out that the legal classification of a city in New South Wales has been defined (since 1993) by Local Government Areas only - you can't have towns declared as cities in NSW anymore. As the Geographical Names Board still recognises those cities declared before the change took place, NSW essentially has two lists, and both of them are useful. For this reason, we should keep both of them there. I've added a bit of info at the beginning defining why we have both lists there. I hope that is sufficient. JRG 06:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I have to agree with JPD and GSTQ here. JRG seems to be confusing notions of 'city'.--cj | talk 13:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How am I confusing notions of city? The only true definition is the legislative one, not some vague notion that we've made up. City status is different everywhere in the world. NSW's may be in a mess, but that isn't my fault - we should stick to what is accurate. If I'm wrong, find a source and prove it and I'll relent, but this is what we have. JRG 13:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: JPD, I don't want to because it would be inaccurate: NSW has had several cities proclaimed since the passing of that legislation, and had that Act not been passed we would have had a lot more "urban cities" as such. There is no criteria for geographical cities in NSW any more, and to make one up apart from those already proclaimed as such isn't very good - we're defining ourselves by a non-existent criteria. If I'm wrong on the LGA thing I'm happy to change it back, but cities are normally proclaimed by the Crown, and there's no provision in legislation to do so in NSW apart from the LGA. (Yes, the Governor or the Queen could do it off her own back, but that would be very unlikely.) You might like to find the explanatory memoranda for previous versions of the LGA - that should tell you when and why it was changed. I have definitely heard or read the sort of thing I was researching on the article page before, but they are the best sources I can find at present. JRG 13:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not inaccurate if the definitions used are spelt out at the beginning of the list, as they really should be in any Wikipedia list anyway. At any rate, the only true definition is not the legislative one. The Macquarie Dictionary lists several definitions, some of which include LGAs such as Parramatta and Nunawading (we can't include one without the other, as you have done!), and some of which specify that it refers to a town or urban area. You may have a point that the 93 legislation stopped the proclamation of more cities, but I don't think it is that simple, as the distinction between LGAs designated cities and towns recognised as cities by the GNB seems to date from before then (e.g. Greater Taree formed in 1981). Whether that is correct or not, we would definitely not be making up the notion or using non-existant criteria if we used the simply criterion "something recognised by the GNB as a city". They (the geographical authority in NSW) do still have criteria for "geographical cities", which I quoted above, and which do not strictly depend on proclamation and legal right, so the comments about proclamation are not relevant. We may be able to pick flaws in their approach, but it is not our job to clean up the mess. Using their classification is the most appropriate way to go. JPD (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: A city status article might be appropriate, whether it contains lists or not. I am not sure what you mean by determined by geographical area, but yes, the list here should definitely state what it is based on. JPD (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What is included on this list?

message: Ok - here's what we could do... how about removing my LGAs list from the page, but putting that into a new article on City status in Australia (like the UK one), with a list on all the different states and how it works (Tasmania, I know, has criteria for a city, for example, determined by legislation.) The urban list can stay, but with the acknowledgement above the list that city status is not determined by geographical area, but the urban city list is acknowledged by the GNB. Suggestions, comments? JRG 14:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A city status article might be appropriate, whether it contains lists or not. I am not sure what you mean by determined by geographical area, but yes, the list here should definitely state what it is based on. JPD (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise?

message: I think they would look more balanced and waste less space if they were more like (code probably could use some tidying--not one of my strengths):
----
Same four cells, but all side-by-side
        	Cities of Queensland	Cities of Queensland	Cities of Queensland	Cities of Queensland
Capital:	
Brisbane           	                    	Cities:             	
Bundaberg  |
Cairns |
Caloundra  |
Charters Towers  |
Gladstone  |
Gold Coast  |
Hervey Bay  | 
Ipswich  
Logan  |
Mackay  |
Maryborough  |
Mount Isa  |
Rockhampton  |
Thuringowa  |
Toowoomba  |
Townsville
----
or:
----
Same as above except the first two cells are merged into one
	Cities of Queensland	Cities of Queensland	Cities of Queensland	Cities of Queensland
Capital:
Brisbane	                    	Cities:             	
Bundaberg  |
Cairns |
Caloundra  |
Charters Towers  |
Gladstone  |
Gold Coast  |
Hervey Bay  | 
Ipswich  
Logan  |
Mackay  |
Maryborough  |
Mount Isa  |
Rockhampton  |
Thuringowa  |
Toowoomba  |
Townsville	
----
or:
----
Same as above except the right two cells are merged into one, and text is flush-left
	Cities of Queensland	Cities of Queensland	Cities of Queensland	Cities of Queensland
Capital:
Brisbane	                    	Cairns | Caloundra | Charters Towers | Gladstone | Gold Coast | Hervey Bay | Ipswich
Logan | Mackay | Maryborough | Mount Isa | Rockhampton | Thuringowa | Toowoomba | Townsville	                    	
----
Instead of:
----
        	
Cities of Queensland
Capital:	
Brisbane
Cities: 	
Bundaberg  |
Cairns |
Caloundra  |
Charters Towers  |
Gladstone  |
Gold Coast  |
Hervey Bay  | 
Ipswich  
Logan  |
Mackay  |
Maryborough  |
Mount Isa  |
Rockhampton  |
Thuringowa  |
Toowoomba  |
Townsville
----
Any thots? Preferences between the three suggested alternatives? Seattlenow 23:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the first option as it meets your intention of a more compact table while keeping Capital: and Brisbane together – options #2 and #3 look 'awkward' and too separated due to line spacing. Also while I'm here... I have added Redcliffe City to the Cities of Queensland template.  Redcliffe was proclaimed a city in 1959 when Princess Alexandra visited with a royal charter from The Queen. There is a photo of her "on tour" in Redcliffe here (I did try to find a better citation but couldn't find much quickly, and I am referencing a letter to the August 1, 2007 Redcliffe and Bayside Herald by Peter Russell of Woody Point)... Seo75 02:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How about more compact 'Cities of State' footer templates?

message: This edit today by JRG reverted several valid edits made by various editors over a 10 week period back to his 11 June version. Many of the edits reverted were purely administrative, including one vandalism reversion. There is no justification for the reversion of these edits; the action was blatant vandalism that normally would require no more than a rollback of the vandalism and adding a warning to the user's page, which I've done. However, this is not the first time there has been a conflict with this section and since today's vandalism involves an experienced editor it would now seem prudent to address the issue here.
The article defines two types of cities in NSW:
# Urban cities proclaimed before 1993, which are still acknowledged on the register of the Geographical Names Board of New South Wales, and
# all Local Government Areas which have been proclaimed as cities.
Since one of the criteria of an urban city is that is acknowledged on NSW's Geographical Names Register (GNR) I examined the register and identified all cities listed on that register. Some of the cities currently listed as urban cities are not on the register and should be deleted. However, JRG asserts that "Parramatta, Liverpool and Campbelltown are part of Sydney, even though they are cities in their own right" and, for that reason, they shouldn't be included. While they may be part of Greater Sydney, exclusion because of that does not seem valid. If we exclude those three then City of Blue Mountains and Cessnock should probably be excluded because they're not urban and there are similar reasons why several other cities listed should not be included for various reasons that can be made up. Quite simply, if cities fit the urban city criteria they should be listed appropriately. On the other hand, if they don't fit the criteria they should not be listed as an urban city.
That said, I don't think the title "urban cities" is appropriate. Clearly cities like Blue Mountains and Cessnock are not urban in nature despite being listed on the GNR. Since a major criteria of these cities is that they be listed on the GNR it seems more appropriate to title this section "Cities acknowledged on the Geographical Names Register". 
A related issue is that NSW legislation now allows only LGAs to be proclaimed cities. As a result, the cities on the GNR have expanded or contracted as necessary to include all parts of the LGA in which the cities are located. Cessnock is a good example of this. The currently titled "Urban cities" section is therefore actually a subset of the section titled "Local Government Areas Declared as Cities" and could, in theory, be deleted as redundant. I don't propose that this happens as there seems to be some signifcance in the fact that there are a number of cities proclaimed before the 1993 legislation that do not appear on the GNR apparently because they're LGAs. (eg Lake Macquarie) It seems more sensible to keep the two sections separate and exclude "urban cities" from "Local Government Areas Declared as Cities" and vice versa. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NSW - urban cities 

message: both this and List of cities in Australia by population cover the same information: for example, the tables could be moved to this article while the bulk of this article can be moved down, below the tables.  the statistical information is included in the other article while little quantitative information is included here relative to the other one.68.151.25.115 (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an incorrect assumption. This article lists actual cities. The other article lists populated areas by size based on data provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The populated areas defined by the ABS do not coincide with the actual cities, even though they have the same or similar names and are determined by the ABS to be cities. In short, the two articles cover different, although related, subjects and should therefore not be merged. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

text: What AussieLegend wrote. There is no valid reason to merge these. I removed the tag. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge 

message: Under the WA Local Government Act 1995  Division 1 
:*section 2.4.3.a says the district is in the metropolitan area and has more than 30 000 inhabitants more than half of whom live in an urban area; or 
:*section 2.4.3.b the district, if it is not in the metropolitan area, has more than 20 000 inhabitants more than half of whom live in an urban area. 
:*section 2.4.4 A district can only be designated a town if more than half of its inhabitants live in an urban area.
:*section 2.4.5 other districts are called shires
That answers the definition for a City in the political(LGA) sense in WA Gnangarra 11:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Western Australia

message: Hi, I’m a non-logged-in user who wants to update that list. I will be constantly be updating this list as some states/territories haven’t been added. If you would like to add visit Draft:List of Cities in Australia (2020-present). Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:38AF:7000:A514:CAA4:4C24:D858 (talk) 08:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Your link is broken. It's actually  Draft:List Of Cities In Australia (2020-present) and I really don't see the point in a new article. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  New List 

message: See the reference here  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:38AF:7000:A514:CAA4:4C24:D858 (talk) 08:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the source provided "PORT Macquarie will be recognised as a regional city" so it is not a city yet. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Port Macquarie IS a city! 

message: This does seem to make sense. Should this read:"Former local government areas that were accorded city status (however not since amalgamated) include:"Fleet Lists (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This then takes me on to Canterbury Bankstown -their website at https://www.cbcity.nsw.gov.au/council/mayor-councillors states :"The new City of Canterbury Bankstown was​ proclaimed by the NSW Government on 12 May 2016, replacing the former Bankstown and Canterbury Councils, becoming the largest Council in NSW, by population, with more than 361,000 residents. The Government-appointed Administrator, Mr Richard Colley, led the transition of the new Council for a period of 18 months, leading up to the 9 September 2017 election. Fifteen councillors were elected, three in each of the five Wards." So they claim to be a City. This would then contradict the above.Fleet Lists (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it was fairly self-explanatory. These are former LGAs that were accorded city status but which have been amalgamated into new LGAs. In NSW, city boundaries are defined by the LGA boundaries. I live in Raymond Terrace, the largest town in Port Stephens Council. If Raymond Terrace were given city status, the city boundaries would not be the town boundaries, they would be the LGA boundaries and the city would likely be called "City of Port Stephens". Dubbo itself was afforded city status and the boundaries were that of City of Dubbo. However, the LGA was merged with another to become Western Plains Regional Council. That raises the question of what the Dubbo boundaries are now. Do they follow the Western Plains Regional Council or do they remain the old City of Dubbo boundaries. Nobody in government seems to be able to provide an answer. In the case of Canterbury Bankstown it would appear that the two cities have merged so both Canterbury and Bankstown have city status but under the Canterbury Bankstown name. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Former local government areas that were accorded city status (however since amalgamated) include: " 

message: What's the different between the two groups of WA cities?  The second group is for cities inside metropolitan Perth, but four of the eleven cities in the first group are also in metropolitan Perth.  64.203.186.117 (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  WA cities