Talk:Adelaide

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Adelaide is part of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Australia To-do: edit  Here are some tasks you can do to help with WikiProject Australia: The current Australian collaboration of the fortnight article is Torres Strait Islanders. Requests: Bicentennial Heritage Trail, Daintree Reef, George Adams, Insurance in Australia, Poppy Industries, Sports Rorts affair, State Orchestra of Victoria, Yarmirr v Northern Territory Attention: Aboriginal Protection Act, Australian Payments Clearing Association, Coral Sea Islands, Qantas, Peter Foster, Reg Ansett Expand: Barossa Valley, Coorong, South Australia, List of Australian military memorials, Palm Island, Queensland, Rossiter Bay Juanita Coco Stubs: Australian Racing Museum Australian women's cricket team, Barry McKenzie, Calgardup Bay, Western Australia, Mortein, Prospect Creek, Russian Jack, Yabbying, Younghusband, South Australia Images: Darwin beer-can regatta, Darwin International Airport, Dingo Fence, Driza-Bone, Eucalyptus coolabah, Esky, Four'N Twenty Pie Quality watch: 36 FA-Class Australia articles - 21 GA-Class Australia articles.

Adelaide has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Geography article has been rated GA-Class on the assessment scale.

Adelaide Meetup Next meetup: - view/edit

Last meetup: 24th August 2006

Archive 1

[edit] Adelaide: City of Corpses?

I remember watching a TV programme a couple of years ago about Adelaide having a terrible Murder rate. Is or was this the case as it seems like such a nice place in the photos. Holden 27

As I recall, there was a British documentary made a few years back, on the Peter Falconio disappearance (in the Northern Territory), that mistakingly claimed that Adelaide was the 'murder capital of the world' - a ludicrous suggestion. The show's producers later retracted the comments, removed them from the production and aired an apology. In reality, I think either Washington D.C. or Bogota have the highest murder rates. Althougth, at the time of the documentary, there had, unfortunately, been a recent spate of murders - the Snowtown killings.--Cyberjunkie 09:56, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To put it another way, even though the rates of murder and other violent crime are quite low, but when something does happen (Snowtown, the Beaumont kids, etc) it tends to be grisly and creative enough to get media attention. Our murderers embody a spirit often heard among the city's prouder residents: we're fewer in number but that much more artistic, classier even, than the rest of the country. :p J.K. 13:15, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I guess it may be worth having a "Adelaide crime" article one day in the future, but after working on the Snowtown murders one I'm not rushing to do it Lisa 04:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

What a strange analogy, but then Adelaide is a very strange place. Of course the Snowtown murders are an embodiment of Adelaide's unique style. ( what a ludicris offensive statement ) As an interstater, the first thing I noticed was how much poverty and mental illness there was in this city. Dear old Adelaide is a place of extremes. It exhibits a seedy underbelly of extreme feralness while claiming a mantle of high culture on the other. The murders here have recurring themes that centre around pedaphiles, homosexuals and transvestites. Lord knows why the government tries to attract migrants. The truth is that unless your kids have a university degree they are likely to end up working in a factory or within the service industry. Even with a degree you may not find a decent job and will have to leave.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.29.3.129 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 28 January 2006.

I think you missed Jiminy's sarcastic tone. Adelaide is no different to any other city in the prevelance of mental illness and poverty (what a ludicrous and offensive statement!). The way Adelaide does differ, which you were close to getting at but ultimately failed with your limited no-doubt Susan Mitchell-derived insight, is that the underbelly is rarely brought to light as it is so frequently in Melbourne, Sydney and Perth. --cj | talk 08:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Huge Urban Area

Adelaide has a very large urban area for a city of 1.1 million and its suprising the urban area is so large considering Adelaide overall on average has the highest density of people per square Kilometer (615/km²) out of all five major Australian cities. I mean the Northern suburbs extend quite far but the Southern suburbs just go on and on. I made a relevant reference to this under the section "Urban Layout" but someone took it away. Why? what I said is true and I'm from this city so I think I play a role in adding to the page on it. User talk:You Are Here 20:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo requests?

Does anyone think we should take photos of Rundle Mall, Glenelg or the Festival Theatre and put them up here? If you were visiting Adelaide what sort of things would you like to know about the place?

There are already articles for Rundle Mall and Glenelg, any pictures that we might find or take should go there. As for the Festival Theatre...we can always start :) MaXim

Refer here--Cyberjunkie 02:49, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, add more pics, include heritage buildings from street level, beaches, Adelaide oval etc. I vote to dump the skyline pic ... too glamourous, this is not a travel brochure. I may add some when I get a round tuit. Solander 21 Apr 2005

I will try to take some high quality photos with my Sony Digi Camera over the next weeks. Be a tourist in my own town for a day. :) Andreasu 10:18, 03 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is it a good idea to have a Adelaide gallery (pictures of Adelaide) on Adelaide? Because I added two pictures on Adelaide and were later deleted. Andreasu 06 Jun 2005

Hi Andreasu. I removed the pictures you added because they made the page aesthetically awkward. I moved the map to Light's Vision, and the street circuit image was already at Adelaide Street Circuit. As abovementioned, this page can be used to deposit Adelaide-related GFDL and Fair Use images. -- Cyberjunkie 16:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I added the street circuit image to Adelaide Street Circuit because I knew it needed one when I found the picture here. --ScottDavis 00:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi ScottDavis, I agree it did make the page look awkward, in other words it was in mess. As long the pictures are still online then there is no problems. :) --Andreasu 2:25PM, 16 Jun 2005

Perhaps I should have thanked you for the picture. Thankyou.

Also, I've noticed some people putting Categories on the Image page, and then the pictures end up at the bottom of the Category page, below the articles. We could pick some that represent the most significant things about Adelaide, and put them in Category:Adelaide. --ScottDavis 09:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fleurieu Peninsula

The article states that Adelaide is located on the Fleurieu Peninsula. In fact, this peninsula does not technically begin until some way south of the city, in the Adelaide Hills.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.136.181.160 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 22 July 2005.

In the sense that Adelaide extends to Wilunga, Adelaide is situated on the Fleurieu Peninsula, which in fact begins in the "City" of Onkaparinga near Flagstaff Hill/Happy Valley.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 10:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Adelaide doesn't extend to Wilunga. That would take the boundries of Adelaide past McLaren Vale (for instance), which is a separate region (eg: "The McLaren Vale Wine Region"). Most tourism sites seem agree that the Fleurieu is south of Adelaide, eg: [1] [2]

Is there a universal definition of "Peninsula"? For tourism purposes, the FP is south of Adelaide, although Mclaren Vale is considered to be on the FP. Looking at your suggested links and Google Earth, sensible places to draw a straight line to cut the peninsula would be Sellicks Beach to Middleton or Port Adelaide to Milang or Wellington. The first of these excludes Adelaide, the second includes it. Langhorne Creek seems to be considered to be on FP, so Wellington, Murray Bridge or Mannum must be the right spot for that end of the line, and if it's straight either Port Adelaide or Port Wakefield for the other end. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Peninsula: "A peninsula is a geographical formation consisting of an extension of land from a larger body, surrounded by water on three sides." Based on that definition (and some browing on maps from atlas.sa.gov.au) I'd suggest a line from Goolwa to Aldinga Beach would be appropriate.

Further research shows [3] and [4]. I think we can conclude that the Fleurieu starts well south of Adelaide.

Cyberjunkie's right, As a local, i think most consider the Fleurieu to start somewhere between the northern tip of the City of Onkaparinga (at Darlington) and the top of O'Halloran Hill - Adelaide city is not on the Fleurieu, greater Adelaide is Oliyoung

[edit] Picture at top of page

I added an image to the top of the Adelaide page, showing the skyline. It was promptly moved, and I would like to object to this - the first thing people see when they visit the site is a drab coat of arms and a contents page. An immediate picture helps to make the article seem more interesting. Compare to the Los Angeles page.

- Michaelgabrielsen 11:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Having two pictures seems to have helped, I previewed pages in the past with a picture at the top but could never get them to look right (so I never saved them). The changes I've made seem to fit in okay. - Diceman 17:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Looks great! Nice edit mate! - Michaelgabrielsen 02:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be odd layout between the photos and the table if the window is wider than half a screen or so. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Could I suggest writing a larger, two paragraph intro so that the intro would be on the left, two pictures on the right and then a scroll down to where history would be on the left and the adelaide info sidebar on the right? - Michaelgabrielsen 11:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Two photos is too much, it breaks the layout of the page in Firefox and I don't see what the skyline view of adelaide adds that the night shot doesn't - whether it's drab or not doesn't matter, it's whether the content is visible and accesible Oliyoung 11:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Bad coding and layout breaks the layout in firefox - not the addition of images. For the most part, more interesting visual representation will do a lot more for the readability of the article rather than a more drab statistics bar at the top of the page. If someone can balance an introduction, two images and the statistics bar properly than it should be done. Removing it rather than fixing it is the easy and not the appropriate way out.

If anything, the statistics bar should be removed. No other article for an Australian city has it, and it does little to add to the article itself - seeing as much of it's information is repeated in the article itself anyway. - Michaelgabrielsen 12:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

What's this "breaks layout" thing that's mentioned here and in the history, I use Firefox at 1024x768 and it all seemed to format properly without any unusual artifacts. - Diceman 14:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Someone did a minor edit to the intro which threw it all off balance. I'd vote for it to be reverted back to when it all worked. I've got Firefox too, and I'm running it in 1152x864 so- I didn't see what the original problem was, before someone messed with the intro and messed it up. - Michaelgabrielsen 22:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I hope I wasn't the one who mucked it up. What I saw was the pictures against the right side of the window with the intro in the left (good so far). Below the intro, the infobox was up against the photos, rather than slipping in underneath them. I've noticed similar odd things in some F1 driver articles lately, I wonder if someone has changed the CSS for tables, and it's not helping. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I've done a re-edit, placing both the pictures and the sidebar in there and correctly aligned. It should look and work fine - I've tested it in Internet Explorer and Firefox in varying resolutions. - Michaelgabrielsen 06:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Looks great now and balance is good, nice edit Michaelgabrielsen! -- Oliyoung 13:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

There can still be a layout problem with Firefox, but at the moment the window has to be wider than 1200 pixels to show it, which is unusual (I don't like windows that wide anyway). --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Headings

Recently, there has been a proliferation of sub-headings in the article. Whilst these headings have been accompanied by truly valuable information, I would like to advise against their use. Generally, (and having being involved in several FAC's I can attest), headings are avoided as they un-necessarily inflate the contents table and interupt the flow of the prose. (It used to be possible to create sub-headings that did not appear in the contents, but the recent MediaWiki upgrade repealed this function.) I have revised the page to reflect this.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 11:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't a more diverse amount of headings simply break the text down so it's eaiser to read and differentiate? I havent been able to correctly judge yet - but the for the most part I'd see an enlargement of the contents list as proof of the article's concise and diverse amount of information. In most featured city articles (which I believe the ultimate aim for Adelaide should be) they have a diverse contents list. I've been the one adding most of the information and breaking down/expanding the articles and whilst I wouldn't want to upset the norm, my goal would be a feature-quality article on Adelaide and want to pursue any means to that end. - G 11:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Headings by themselves are necessary; sections do enhance the presentation of information. However, sub-headings really do not contribute anything, and are avoided in preference of defined paragraphs. I too would like to see Adelaide become a featured article, although much remains to be done in that regard. Perhaps the best guide or template for Adelaide is Canberra, which is itself the subject of an effort, driven by nixie, to achieve feature status for Australian city articles. Canberra is being modelled on Johannesburg and Mumbai, an article frequently invoked as a benchmark for city articles. I have over the past few months been compiling information I plan to use in this article (especially with regards to demographics and history/culture), but am about to enter an especially hectic period of the university semester. The further reading section I added contains two books of particular usefulness. There is also a very brief (almost deficient) to-do list on this page. Please add ideas to it that you think necessary. Happy editing, --Cyberjunkie | Talk 07:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New section? CDB & Parklands

New section: "Layout of Adelaide"??

I am thinking about a new section for this article becuase there is no separate article for the CBD (this one potentially includes information about the whole metro area from Reynella to Munno Para). Where would it be best to put info about the layout and arrangement of the CBD itself and the parklands? In the tasklist there is mention of a section that would include "Light's vision" which would be great I think - not just relevant in history section because it is also about the present. Look forward to working on this, but where - in a new section or a new article?

The layout of Adelaide section would include: summary and/or list of the major features in and around parklands and CBD - eg. Botanic gardens, Himeji gardens, lists of major streets, North Tce, Rundle St, etc.

But maybe this is the wrong way to go about it. After all precincts like Norwood Pde deserve the same attention as Rundle St, but isn't in the CBD/Nth Ad/parklands and would miss out...

--Lisa 05:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

In the task list I created for this article, I indicated I thought discussion of Light's Vision could take place under a then non-existent geography section. The beginnings of a geography section has since been created, but Light's Vision is not yet discussed. However, I am not certain this is the best format.

Firstly, I think we need to recognise that this article needs to discuss Adelaide in terms of its metropolitan area, including the city proper. To clarify terms, the CBD, in an Adelaidean context, is the "Square Mile" or, historically, "South Adelaide". The CBD does not include North Adelaide or the metropolitan area. (By some interpretations, it may not even include some areas of the Square Mile – but let's not complicate things further). The "City of Adelaide", as per the council area, encompasses the CBD, North Adelaide and the Parklands. If we are to talk about Light's Vision, it is in reference to the City of Adelaide. Only the City could be said to have a particularly notable layout. The metropolitan area is as haphazard as any other city. However, it too should be discussed.

Looking about over city articles, I have a few ideas on how we might structure the Adelaide article. I think the best example of how this article should be structured is Canberra – which is about to enter FAC, and is based on Mumbai and Johannesburg. As an Australian city that was also planned (but in a more complete sense), it has a basic structure that we should follow. By and large, it pretty much already conforms. However, because Adelaide is unique (and homogeneity is not always best) we shouldn't be afraid to format differently.

Because of similarity in terms, I looked at London. It also has an original city proper – the City of London – that was encased by a Greater London that developed around it and a metropolitan area beyond that. The London article has a "London Districts" section that details the areas that compose London. Perhaps we could model a section on this, possibly entitled "Layout of Adelaide" as Lisa suggests. Under it we could discuss the City of Adelaide, and regions in the metropolitan area. These need to be defined. What are the regions or areas of Adelaide? We could divide Adelaide into Northern-, Southern-, Eastern- and Western Suburbs or we could go further and talk of the Port, Holdfast Bay, the Foothills, the Plains and Wilunga.

Alternatively, we could have two sections: one to discuss the City of Adelaide itself ("Layout of Adelaide" again?), and another, "Suburbs of Adelaide" (as used in Canberra and Johannesburg), for the metro region. Under "Suburbs of Adelaide" one could talk of the original satellite villages such as Norwood and Glenelg and the process of surbanisation, well as the suburbs themselves.

As for the separate articles, I think we should have City of Adelaide like the City of London for more extensive discussion of the City – including its Parklands, streets and CBD – instead of articles like Melbourne CBD or Sydney CBD.

Damn. I've rambled on again. Sorry! This is something that we need to figure out before we really start working on the article. Perhaps we should transfer this to WikiProject Adelaide? Anyways, please pick at my comments and see if anything can be made of them.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 12:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Plastic Age Radio

(an old section moved from above to be here) Lisa 01:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

(I attempted to post this last night just as Wikipedia overloaded)

Could Turbo or anyone else please demonstrate some degree of notability or significance to Adelaide of the Plastic Age Internet "radio" station? Having paid for an APRA licence to play recorded music in a public place does not demonstrate anything, except that they are trying not to get sued for copyright infringement. Good on them for that, but so what? --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi all, sorry i had a few issues trying to figure out this talk page thing, but glad to discuss the issues with this link. I shall cover off a few point now, 1) i have no affliation with the station, except that i am an avid listener to it 2) There seems to be an issue becuase its not licenced as a comercial station, thats true it is not. But currently laws in Australia do not regulate webradio station that are non comercial , except for the fact that this station is licenced with APRA, and therefore is licenced to its fullest capabilities. I beleive the station should be listed on this page because of the following reasons 1) its extremely unique to Adelaide (infact Adelaide first and only webradio station. 2) Has conformed to all licencing policies. 3) For these reasons and that it does seek to support Adelaide artists and the 'arts' in general it should be listed in the main index. You comments please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Turbo (talk • contribs) Scott Davis ^Talk 01:43, 17 September 2005 (UTC).

No the issue is that the consensus of regular editors here is that (at present) PlasticAge Radio is not notable in Adelaide. As Cyberjunkie said, there may be a few radio stations in the list that disappear when we finish writing it up properly as prose, too. --Scott Davis ^Talk 01:43, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Adelaide editors. I have temporarily protected the page to stop the revert war over the inclusion of the above mentioned internet radio station. In my experience internet radio stations have to be quite significant in terms of site traffic and so on to pass through the deletion process, this station's site has a page rank of three million + on Alexa (1 is most popular site on the internet). So how about a straw poll to guage concensus amongst editors to decide if a mention of this site stays in this Article?--nixie 08:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Keep in Adelaide

If the guy's determined to use wikipedia for advertising purposes it could always be mentioned here on the talk page. That's what I would have done if I were in his position rather than start an unwinnable edit war. As an anonymous editor I don't think this person's got the right idea of what wikipedia is about (i.e. an encyclopedia). - Diceman 13:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Move to List of Adelaide radio stations if and when it exists

• Comment It already exists at List of Australian radio stations. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Remove from this article

• I don't want a separate list created unless it is done properly - the last thing we need is another incomplete and/or pointless list à la List of churches in Adelaide. For the time being, the existing list of radio stations in the article will do. That list already includes the major stations (and some minor). --Cyberjunkie | Talk 08:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Remove from here - nobody I asked has ever heard of it. Turbo has added it to the News and weather part of List of Internet stations with no objections. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Remove; naturally, if it ever grows into something widely listened to (by something like the definition for having its own article above) or essential to an understanding of the culture our fine city (*cough*hack*cough*) we can add it back to the list. J.K. 12:22, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Write about it elsewhere perhaps but not in this article -- non-notable in Adelaide at present. Lisa 13:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Remove; as I've said up there ^, IMHO the list of Adelaide Radio stations should list prominant ABA licenced radio stations that are notably from Adelaide Oliyoung 10:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be to keep it out, I've unprotected the article so you folks can get on with things. I'll keep watching this article for any persistent additions.--nixie 10:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Melbourne-Adelaide rivalry

This has nothing to do with the article but I'm wondering it for my own sake, did Adelaide and Melbourne have any rivalry before the Grand Prix was moved, are they rivals outside of the field of securing economic opportunities? I put "arch-rivals" in the grand prix paragraph but that's how feelings between the two cities seemed to me. I was about to put "long-standing rivals" instead but that might be untrue as I didn't pay any real attention to interstate politics before the change in venue. For all I know Sydney and Melbourne might have a greater rivalry. - Diceman 16:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it's rivalry on Adelaide's part, much the same as the Sydney-Melbourne rivalry is predominately a Melbourne thing. In our case it's probably just an extension of the SA-Vic rivalry, which again, is mostly on our part. In my experience, Victorians don't really give a shit about Adelaide - they're more pre-occupied with Melbourne being usurped by Sydney as Australia's pre-eminent city.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 03:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Cyberjunkie is pretty much right about that but Sydney has never usurped them in the sense that Sydney has always had a stronger resonance with others from o/s and here as Australia's centre. Melbourne's relationship with Adelaide has always been playing the bigger, bullying brother. While we are on this topic, thought this article was interesting. Talks about how the rivarly kind of started (SA v Vic):

http://www.abc.net.au/westernvic/stories/s1411014.htm

Frances76 05:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It has been suggested that the rivalry originates from the South Australia-Victoria border dispute. However, I've always thought it had more to do with sport - in particular Aussie Rules, and whether the VFL (now AFL) was better than SANFL. The VFL always had a larger fan base and so more money, which is what matters in the end. Pingku 06:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

Further to the previous discussion about photos...

I know this is not a tourist brochure but I miss those other two photos that were up the top of the Adelaide article a few months back. And that "View of the Adelaide Plains from the Mount Lofty Ranges" photo, while quite artistic and beautiful is of very little informational value in my opinion. Perhaps some slightly more zoomed in pics for geography? And for education, some photos of the universities might be nice...

One editor suggested making a gallery of thumbnails of pics of Adelaide. I think this might be a good way to include all acceptable photos of Adelaide in one spot so 1) we, the editors know where they are; 2) readers have access to images that add value in a small way; 3) we all can have a single repository of copyright-free photos of Adelaide.

Your thoughts? Donama 07:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll be off with a mate in the next week to take some photos (just got a new camera) so might have additions. I'll post links to them here when I upload them. - G 07:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I created a section of the WikiProject Adelaide for this reason a while back. It hasn't been used :(. I don't think we need worry about providing a gallery for readers; we as editors should be able to integrate them into articles as necessary.

I have been meaning to get out and take some photos of Adelaide, but have been restricted by technical capacity... I'll try to get some shots of Adelaide over the next couple months. In fact, Flinders Uni provides the perfect vantage point for shots of the city and plains.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 08:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Greenhill Road and the Kensington Road lookout are good for photos of Adelaide from the East - if I had a camera I'd take some. Alphax ^τεχ 10:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

If you upload your photos to WikiMedia Commons and put them in Category:Adelaide, then the gallery page becomes commons:Category:Adelaide. The same can be done for images loaded here, but it's annoying to look at the category for articles and have it load lots of images. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Good idea re using a separate category for Adelaide photos. I was thinking this too, after I wrote the message. Will look forward to some new pics for geography section. I will contribute some at some point too hopefully. Donama 02:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Economy

Does anybody know where in Adelaide ore refining is done? I think it might be more South Australia rather than Adelaide related. Kevin 12:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Not in Adelaide (from my little google-search)... Cheers, - >>michaelg | talk 13:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Silver, lead and zinc at Port Pirie. Iron ore at Whyalla. There's not an ore refinery in the Adelaide area that I know of. There is a currently-disused oil refinery at Port Stanvac in the southern suburbs. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Culture (music) - Prominent Adelaidians

How can Adelaide music be given some note under culture? For example the List of Australian hardcore punk groups article refers to a number of Adelaide based bands. Currently the Prominent Adelaidians section notes a number of musicians. Paul foord 05:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Urban Layout

Good start on this section. However, I should just mention that there was not opposition to Light's design of Adelaide, but his choice of site. Governor Hindmarsh, being the obstinate and authoritarian man that he was, insisted most stridently that Adelaide be a harbour (or coastal) city and advanced the Port River, Holdfast Bay, Kangaroo Island and Boston Bay (Port Lincoln) as locales - the latter two of which would have certainly seen the colony fail. Ultimately though, it was not his decision, and Light and his supporters obtained support the Commissioners in London (much to Hindmarsh's chagrin). --Cyberjunkie | Talk 13:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Just a quick question. The article stated that Light's layout was inspired by the garden city movement. However, that article states the movement didn't start until 1899. So either that article is wrong or the Adelaide article is erroneous. Does someone want to check on that?

[edit] Image use from SA Tourism

This conversation has been moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Adelaide

[edit] Recent changes

While it's good to see expansion of this article, I've removed some of the recent changes to the article because they require references and some were not Adelaide-specific; they were broadly state-focused.--cj | talk 13:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll rewrite the sections again with more of an Adelaide-focus. Might even throw in some footnotes too (was planning to add them in when I'd finished with all the sections). - G^t 13:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics

The demographics section refers to a high level of immigrants in the North Western suburbs (Salisbury, Golden Groves). These two suburbs are in the North East. Hoping someone else will correct this since I am not aware of whether this refers to the North East or whether different example suburbs should be listed.

Hallett Cove as a wealthier and more educated suburb?? First I've heard of it. Me thinks this was written by a HC resident!!

[edit] Don Dunstan

Got to love the references to him being the saviour for South Australia. Personally I'd disagree (while his social policies and reforms may have benefited, his transport and economonic ones did not). I'd remove the reference to Don. He's already praised enough both in the culture section and in his own article. - G^t 14:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not celebratory of Dunstan. Like him or not, the era of his premiership is pivotol to the development of modern Adelaide, so much so that almost all literature (that I've come across) agrees. However, whilst Adelaide and SA made social, political and cultural gains under Dunstan, it was largely under Playford that South Australia advanced economically.--cj | talk 14:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Images

Is it just me or do the images added by rocky88 make this article look damn ugly. would revert but thought i'd leave it to people who contribute to the article to decide if it needs reverting. Bartimaeus 12:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Good images, poorly integrated. I've corrected this.--cj | talk 13:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History Section

It needs a slight prune and a copyedit. Any takers? - G^t 06:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prominent Adelaideians

Would this section be able to be moved to another article and listed under "see also" down the bottom? It's not on the other city articles and doesn't work in well with following the guidelines that Canberra has set. - G^t 03:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I've transferred it to an article entitled People of Adelaide to correspond with the category of the same name. I had no attachment to the section as it was, but we could include another short section linking to People of Adelaide as a main article. --cj | talk 11:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I was actually planning to get Adelaide ready for FA before study starts again - I'm not sure how best to include 'People of Adelaide'. Tempted to put it under 'See also' with a link to it in the article itself aswell. I wanted it removed both because it doesn't exactly belong and it raises the article size needlessly. - G^t 12:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adelaide Population

There are too many conflicting numbers of the Adelaide population. What to use? according to this link the population of Adelaide (including the outer region, 2001) is 1 224 804. If there are no responses or other suggestions I'll be changing them all over soon. - G^t 09:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the best source to use is the ABS, which puts Adelaide's population at 1,124,315 as of June 2004 (see here). Outer Adelaide is not really Adelaide, but a region far greater including some of the Hills, the Barossa, the Fleurieu and Alexandrina, and even KI (see here). DEH's figures are from the 2001 Census anyway. After this year's census, we'll have even better statistics. I've updated the article.--cj | talk 15:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

What I don't understand is how in the main body of text it says that Adelaide's population is almost 1.3 million, yet on the side in the fact box it states that it is 1,124,315 (to me, that is closer to 1.1 million!) . Would someone please be good enough to correct this difference, either by defining what regions are used to define these populations or correcting the wrong one so they match (which I presume is 1.3 million). Frances76 05:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transport > Infrastructure

The change would bring the article more in line with Canberra (which is FA)

Suggested Layout:

• Infrastructure

• Public Transport
• Road Network
• Air & Sea Ports
• Utilities

Any suggestions/comments? - G^t 02:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems okay, although I'm unsure. I think Health should have a subsection, as well. I think it's reasonable to separate public transport from other modes; however, the Road Network part could be troublesome. I'll ask nixie to comment.--cj | talk 02:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, featured city articles typically have, health, transport (usually the longest of the three) and utilites; its important not to break that into to many subsections as it really extends the table of contents. So, they are the three infrastructure sections I'd aim for. A Y Arktos did a comparison of the material in the features cities which you guys may find interesting ,it is at Talk:Canberra.

If I can offer some peer review the transport section currently in the article is getting a little long, there is too much historical detail and transport cruft (someone in Rome isn't going to care if John Howard opened the airport). More generally try and keep the article around 40 kb, we did it for Autralia, so it should be possible here. The history section for example is a bit more padded than it could be to convey the really interesting things from Adelaide's history. It's probably also a good idea to replace as many of the non-free images in the article as possible, try the commons and flickr - it'll make the FAC process easier when the article is ready.--nixie 03:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I've started it. Need to re-expand the transport section again appropriately though. Thanks for the comments nixie! michael ^talk 03:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sport > Port Adelaide Football Club

Oliyoung removed an update to the Port Adelaide Football Club suggesting it was about something called PortPower, There is no such thing called Port Power. There is however the Port Adelaide Football Club est 1870, that was formerly known as the Magpies, the club no longer plays in the SANFL and now plays in the AFL, the clubs team is nicknamed "Power" and the club had a long and proud history in the SANFL up until 1996. The PAFC website will show you the club history, which is correct and the PAMFC website also points out the PAFC joined the AFL. Why do so many take it unto themselves to try and change the clubs history and what the club tells you about itself ?

No, I removed a statement that alluded that the Port Adelaide Football Club (AFL) is the same entity as the Port Adelaide Magpies (SANFL). The Port Adelaide "Power" are a seperate club from the "Magpies". To quote the Magpie's wikipedia entry "in 1995 an organisation separate legally from the existing one but intended to carry on the old club's heritage and culture, the current Port Adelaide Football Club, was incorporated to further the bid."

I was editing on the basis it was incorrect, it was an unverified edit, and that the information is already contained in the seperate articles Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club and Port Adelaide Football Club, which I should note conflict in their representation of the club's split Oliyoung 23:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notability Guidelines

I propose we start using the Notability guidelines in sections such as music, famous people and other relevant areas in this article. We've had issues before with the notabilty of radio stations, and there are additions to the local musicians which are questionable at best. Oliyoung 00:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, but have no knowledge of the music scene to judge local notability. I had my finger poised over the revert button recently, and decided to leave it to someone who knew. --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you're referring to some anonymous editor just adding in their own band. That's not notability, it's just vandalism (or a misguided contribution). The section (Culture) is fine as it is. michael ^talk 06:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Now that I'm called for specifics, it was adding Clue to Kalo to People of Adelaide that I was thinking of. It has some web hits, and I had not heard of several others already in the list. I'm not familiar with the music scene or how to tell which music web sites count towards notability. I didn't feel I could revert that anon edit without being confident the others already in the list were more notable than the addition. --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the point behind the notability guidelines is that you don't need knowledge of the music scene, if they've charted, had X record sales etc, then they're notable, it gives us a testable and consistent protocol for future additions. Currently it's okay, I've never heard of "I Killed the Prom Queen" but from a brief google, they seem to be somewhat notable. Oliyoung 06:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree about the point of notability guidelines. Google alone is not a suitable measure. I'm not competent to judge borderline cases on music. --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adelaide more dull then Perth?

Just been flicking over the Perth discussion as well as this one, and am surprised that no one has dubbed Adelaide dull, boring or even resorted to it's famous 'overgrown country town' label. I have spent many years in both Adelaide and Perth, and in 2006, would confidently say that Perth is far less dull then Adelaide. The 'Perth lifestyle' seems enviable! Perth also presents more economic prosperitity than most parts of Australia (in line with NW WA exports). Not trying to start another inter-city bicker, Just find it hard to believe that this page does not already start on the topic of dullness- as Perths' does. Unfair i think. Any subscribers?

No. Its sheer opinion, easily refuted by someone else's perception and hence does not belong here. Something some Wikipedia subscribers simply cannot grasp.

Sounds like it can all be summed up in this sentence: "Ever since Lonely Planet Guide 2000 declared Perth one of the dullest cities on earth, and dubbed it "Dullsville", the word has become part of the city's psyche". - Diceman 15:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

In an encylopedic sense it's a joke to include it! I find it very offensive too... I love Adelaide's lifestyle; the pubs, beaches, rolling hills - I love my home. michael ^talk 00:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I've always found it funny that the only thing anyone has to say about Perth upon returning from there is that is "very clean".cj | talk 03:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Who cares? Baghdad is a very interesting town at the moment. Is anyone up for an Iraq holiday? ～J.K. 06:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Spot on with Iraq. Sorry, But i've heard much much more than the 'very clean' remark from people i have met returning from Perth.

[edit] Governance

This section is notably underwritten (not complete). This needs to be addressed; it ruins the image alignment too and just stands as a distraction from the rest of the article. Any suggestions for what else could be included in this part? michael ^talk 10:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Can I suggest splitting this section into: ===Councils=== and ===Politics=== in order to broaden the information that can be presented and write a worthwhile section? Its obstructing the otherwise good quality of the article. michael ^talk 05:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why no flag or logo?

What is the deal with this, how come no australian cities have a flag or logo in the info box, I'm gonna add one when I find it, it's stupid every other city has either a logo or flag, but no australian cities do, why the hell is that?

The logo is at the relevant council article: City of Adelaide. All the suburban councils presumably have their own flags or emblems. - Randwicked Alex B 07:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nightlife

I added some information about some popular nightclubs and added links as well, however it was reverted as they seemed to be advertisements. Regardless Nightlife information should be present on this article page and can I ask that you people keep it and contribute more information to it? Axle5084 06:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The information in the form you added it is more suited to Wikitravel than here. Your first two sentences would be OK, but they really don't say anything to make Adelaide distinctive compared to any other city. Do Adelaide clubs and pubs have any distinctive features that make them (as a whole) distinct from Sydney, Melbourne, Perth or Brisbane pubs? --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adelaide Accent

After leaving Adelaide a few years ago, particularly initially, I was asked where my accent was from - "New Zealand?" "England?". Other people I have spoke to who have left Adelaide have reported the same thing. Seems to me this is a notable and interesting thing that should be addressed here?

I think it's something to be quite proud of - that Adelaideans have their own unique style of speech. Perhaps this came about from Adelaide not having a convict-based history? Nicknick

See South Australian English. michael ^talk 12:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Governance and Sister Cities

Renamed 'Governance' section as 'Politics and Government' to correspond with other Cities. Is this a mistake? If there is an Australian city template, my apologies. Also, Added Sister City section. Foster2008 01:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

See Canberra for an Australian featured city. City of Adelaide is the local government area that organises sister city relationships. michael ^talk 02:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unique Kaurna ceased burnoffs when "pushed out"?

<<Among their unique customs were burn-offs (controlled bushfires) in the Adelaide Hills which the early Europeans spotted before the Kaurna people were pushed out by settlement.>>

The chevronned quote is bizarre: 1. the Kaurna were not the only indigenous in Aust. to use burn-offs 2. there is no connection between their burn-offs and their expropriation 3. the verb "pushed out" is a not atypical downplaying of what actually happened ie land theft, as recognised eg by Edward John Eyre in his writings in the early 1840s. As Henry Reynolds writes, the 19th century British were much more honest than many Australians these days.

[edit] "Catonaic" (sp.?) City Layout

I once heard current lord mayor Michael Harbison speak about the concept of Adelaide's layout, which Colonel Light also used in Christchurch NZ, and Toronto. Apparently the grid layout interspersed with city squares, and the parklands "green belt" is derived from a medieval italian concept for the "perfect city", where every block of land would have park frontage (roads in those days being park-like). However I have never seen any documented reference to this "catonaic" urban plan and wonder if anyone knows anything further about it. I've also heard that the width of the parklands roughly corresponds to the range of a 19th century cannon. Can anyone confirm or debunk?--EDH 00:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fulfilled Request

Adelaide To Do had request for pruning of entire article. Action taken. Adelaidepruned is the result. This is what Adelaide would look like with this version of pruning. It is about %23 smaller. Discuss. Neutralaccounting 23:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Remember to sign comments with three tides (~~~~). That 'Adelaidepruned' is in the wrong location—it should be deleted soon. Without making changes to the original Adelaide article its very hard to compare the differences. michael ^talk 04:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I've copied Adelaide content to Adelaide/draft and saved, then edited it and copied the content of Adelaidepruned. The differences can be seen as the difference --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rundle Mall Pics

Do we really need two photos of Rundle Mall in an already cluttered article? The 1988 photo with the Malls Balls is iconic but out of date, while the modern photo is of one of the malls less photogenic angles. Perhaps a new photo should be added, with, for example, the Malls Balls in the foreground and Adelaide Arcade in the background? Just a suggestion.--AtD 15:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Entertainment

I just wrote a huge artical on entertainment in Adelaide and before it could even be posted it was deleted. This took me hours and it was not nonsense infact it was very helpful yet it was deleted and I want to know who did this and why!!

Kind regards John Harrison Highns 02:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I am a member of the WikiProject Australia. John Harrison Highns 02:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome John - At present your contribution is still the most recent. I think you will find it at the bottom of the Adelaide page, just above the notes section. It has not been deleted.SauliH 03:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, John. However, I've removed the new section, as;

• Most of it was a repeat of information already stated in the article,
• I don't think a mention of facilities that closed down several years ago is appropriate on the main Adelaide page
• It contains too much unrelated information for one paragraph. It doesn't flow well as a result.
• Poor grammar in the article, red or misleading wiki-links, Non-neutral POV, etc.

I am glad you thought to mention Glenelg. I'm surprised that Glenelg is only discussed in the article in reference to the tram line and not to the cultural focal point it is. Perhaps you could add a new paragraph somewhere under the ‘culture’ heading?

Cheers --AtD 10:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Please can someone clean up the entertainment section, it looks like it's been written by a child. The spelling and grammar are awful, and it hardly gives a good impression for our great city. Thanks, Andrew

I added the band Locura to the music section, I believe they satisfy the notability guidelines.