Talk:Brisbane

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	Brisbane is within the scope 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.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
	This article was the Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight (14 January 2008). For details on the improvements made to the article, see the history of past collaborations.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Brisbane.
Assessment comments This 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.

This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

	Brisbane was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 31, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted October 16, 2005 Peer review Reviewed February 3, 2008 Peer review Reviewed March 14, 2008 Good article nominee Listed March 14, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted Current Status: Delisted good article

To-do list for Brisbane:

edit · history · watch · refresh

The lead is too short and does not summarise some important parts of the article. There is information in geography, governance, economy etc... that would do well to be mentioned here Stubby paras need combining or expanding "The lower population...now frequently replaced by steel or concrete. This section needs inline citations "Brisbane's economy has white-collar and blue-collar industries" Doesn't sound particularly interesting (Don't all cities?) Perhaps a rewrite of this section which seems to be more about urban geography than economy. University para could be expanded to be more interesting than a prose list. This also need sourcing. Venues para - needs sourcing and rewriting for clarity Annual events - needs sourcing Media - inline cites Media - add information on Community Radio stations There is a list of private hospitals but not of the larger public ones? Transport - needs an extensive rewrite to improve the prose and needs inline citations for much of the section. Utilities - choppy paras No information as to what the proposed pipeline is and where it runs

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

[edit] Proposed Tunnel?

I think that the development of the North-South Bypass tunnel should be mentioned in the article. Surely such a costly and overhauling development deserves some recognition. Does anyone else agree? --Will465 (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The TransApex project is already mentioned with a link to it's own page, with a further link to the North-South Tunnel. Not sure road tunnels are that interesting to a general readership to need more. --Michael Johnson (talk) 03:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

As requested on my talk page, here's some feedback on the article:

• Lead - "Brisbane CBD" should be linked to or defined. I see it is linked in paragraph 1 of the history section but feel it should not be left undefined in the lead. Y Done
• History - don't wikilink "Brisbane central business district" twice in such close proximity Y Done
• History - whole paragraph starting "historic buildings...." is unsourced Y Done
• History - "Brisbane tuff"? Presumably this is some sort of stone, but I've never heard of it, so might benefit from an appropriate wikilink Y Done - it's a type of igneous rock
• History - "an interesting anecdote" - not sure this turn of phrase is truly encyclopedic Y Done
• History - last two paragraphs are unsourced Y Done
• Geography - all bar the last paragraph is unsourced
• Governance - lack of sourcing again Y Done
• Economy - ....and again
• Education - no need for capital A on "A member of...." Y Done
• Arts and entertainment - image alongside this section doesn't seem relevant, suggest it be moved elsewhere Y Done
• Annaul events - "Major cultural events include the Ekka (the Royal Queensland Show, aka Royal National Association (RNA) Exhibition) is held each year in August" - not grammatically correct Y Done
• Media - "Quest Newspapers (which is also owned by News Corporation.)" - full stop should not be inside brackets Y Done

Quite a few little "niggles" there, but overall the article is very good, with excellent images. Just a few issues with the text, but if the ultimate aim is FA status then some more references would definitely be needed. Hope this helps!!! ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This should be helpful, thanks heaps :) — Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can someone please...

I am looking for a reliable cite to cite the bit about the river mangroves growing in mud deposited during the flood. I know it's true, problem is I can't find anywhere that's not sketchy to attribute it to. If anyone could find a reliable source it would be much appreciated. Lankiveil (talk) 10:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC).

http://www.coastal.crc.org.au/pdf/HistoricalCoastlines/App_3_Timeline_BrisbaneRiver.pdf alludes to this a bit, so I've added it in. It's the best I could find...— Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Try The Brisbane River: A pictoral history by Longhurst, Robert; William Douglas or another reference on the Brisbane River article. I have seen it mentioned at least once somewhere. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hitorical Place Names: In 1924, I understand that the european settlement on the Redcliffe Peninsula was called "Humpybong". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celcom (talk • contribs) 12:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Brisbane

There was a recent insertion of a sentence about a serious squirmish between Australina and US soldiers in 1942 - where one person was killed. Considering to real battles and wars that Australia has been involved in; and facts like the headquarters of the Australina armed forces was in Brusbane - I find this seriously out of place. I questioned it originally as it needed some authority and indeed that has been put in place. But I suggest it is an odd entry. An encyclopedia about a city needs to be more circumspect. But I do not like edit wars and so I would seek comments before doing anytjhing. Alan Davidson (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt such a statement is necessary, support removal. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The statement is in the History section (it is a part of Brisbane's history). Only a short sentence that gives the internal link to the main article at Battle of Brisbane. I think it should stay. Sting_au Talk 03:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops, thought something else was being referred to. I don't see a reason why that one sentence shouldn't stay...— Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I disagree - I seem to be the only one at the moment. But, I suppose my objection is in part that in the context of a paragraph on WWII, it is misleading; "armed" and "battle" with "US" and "Australia" make it sound like a sanctioned part of the war where the two countries were ... at war. Particular stating it was "during World War II" makes it sounds like it was part of the war. I would suggest it should be described - more like - a civil unrest between visiting US personell and Australian servicemen which escalated to a serious brawl involving the firing of shots and one death. Taking words from the Battle of Brisbane Wiki site - how about this: "In 1942 Brisbane was the site of a violent clash between visiting US military personnel on one side and Australian servicemen and civilians on the other - resulting in one death and several injuries. This incident became known colloquially as the Battle of Brisbane. Alan Davidson (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah seems ok? But Battle of Brisbane remains an internal link right? and the sentence still needs a citation. Sting_au Talk 11:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Alan Davidson (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA nom?

Any thoughts on throwing this up? From what I can see the prose is OK, and most of the stuff that needs refs has it - a few extra eyes couldn't hurt. Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's easily to GA standard. I think it's even potentially FAC standard, to be honest. Lankiveil (talk) 12:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC).

OK - notes:

• lead's a bit slim, given size of the article.

• GA is a good bouncing board and a good place to leave it to mull over for a while. It is not necessary to be GA before FA but every once in a while some reviewer will pop up and state it is a prerequisite and you say no and yada yada. The longer teh FAC page the more glazed and fuzzy it all looks. You want a few comments there as possible (hopefully all supports) in case it all goes horridly pear-shaped..I'll keep looking. (grr..I meeant to get up Sydney before this..) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Beware stubby paras. If they are really short it won't hurt to combine them.

• Reduce repetition (I did a few as examples) - substitute or remove words and see if it reads as well - if it does, ditch it.

• Should there be something about it strectching to the Gold Coast (is it a conurbation yet?)
  • Not yet, no (hopefully it won't be for a long time). Dihydrogen Monoxide 11:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Have a read of Tony's great article on writing.

I'll look later cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Some notes that may be of use;

• The lead needs expansion.
• As a personal preference, I would have the Geography section before the History section
• "peninsula on the Brisbane River" Is peninsula the right word?
• "City of Greater Brisbane" Is this its official name? If so, it needs a cite. Greater Brisbane is used in a different context below and we should be consistent.
• Stubby paras need combining or expanding
• "The area now known as Brisbane was inhabited before European settlement..." Shouldn't this sentence be at the start of the history section? Indeed, more on the indigenous history is needed.
• Is it necessary to list the lat and long in the article body?
• "The lower population...now frequently replaced by steel or concrete. This section needs inline citations
• 1/4 = one quarter
• "Multi residence accommodations (such as apartment blocks) are relative newcomers to Brisbane..." doesn't quite scan
• Climate table. I'm quite fond of the one at Wagga Wagga, New South Wales, a GA
• "Brisbane's economy has white-collar and blue-collar industries" Doesn't sound particularly interesting (Don't all cities?) Perhaps a rewrite of this section which seems to be more about urban geography than economy.
• All the sub-sections in Economy should probably be removed.
• "Brisbane City Council as Australia's largest (by area) predominantly urban Local Government Area, is the most populous LGA in Australia" Does not scan
• "Brisbane is claimed to have the highest rate of population growth of any Australian capital city. The urban population reportedly grew.." claimed? reportedly? Definitive ABS stats should be available.
• University para could be expanded to be more interesting than a prose list. This also need sourcing.
• Venues para - needs sourcing and rewriting for clarity
• "Brisbane is the birthplace of internationally acclaimed singers, music bands, authors, actors, artists, sculptors and fashion designers" Yeah, and... Some examples (without going over the top) would be useful. Think internationally famous, Kylie standard. not artists of merely local or national fame. This should not be difficult
• Annual events - needs sourcing
• "The most popular sports in Brisbane are cricket, rugby union, rugby league and Australian rules football." needs a cite.
• "Teams from Brisbane also feature in minor competitions, including:" Is this really needed in the main article? Isn't that the purpose of Sport in Brisbane; to delve to this level of detail?
• Media - inline cites
• There is a list of private hospitals but not of the larger public ones?
• Transport - needs an extensive rewrite to improve the prose and needs inline citations for much of the section.
• Utilities - choppy paras
• Sister cities - lose the flags and write as prose.

I hope these are useful as a guide. I expect responses will include WP:SOFIXIT. Fair enough too; I will pitch in. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Red links

Articles for all those red links need to be created. --Sharkface217 18:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to draw attention to the fact that after creating William Street, Brisbane it was immediately nominated for deletion. Either the link for this street should be removed from the Brisbane article or if it is to be kept then references should be found to establish its significance. - Shiftchange (talk) 09:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the prod - a few sources (citing that the places mentioned are on said road) would go a long way - thanks. Dihydrogen Monoxide 09:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Would it may be a good idea to merge all those city street articles into a single article or list? There isn't that much of interest on, say, Alice Street or Margaret Street, but Eagle Street is not mentioned, despite having lots of very notable things on it. Lankiveil (talk) 12:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC).

I also posted info about this at WP:AWC (as well as challenges for other articles). So far at least one user has spotted it there and has been improving this article. --Sharkface217 22:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason why Eagle Street is not mentioned in the Brisbane article is because the streets mentioned were all named after British royalty - whereas Eagle Street was not. Anyway, Alice Street is an important street, in that the Brisbane City Botanic Gardens and Queensland Parliament House are both located there - and the entrance to the Queensland University of Technology is also off Alice Street. I agree, though, that Eagle Street is important. Figaro (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that. However, I think in any discussion of the major streets in Central Brisbane, Turbot Street and Eagle Street should probably be mentioned before, say, Margaret Street. Perhaps we should amend that sentence to "Streets named after female members include (Adelaide Street, Alice Street and Elizabeth Street)"? That way we don't have redlinks to non-notable streets, and we can add mentions to notable streets that don't fit into the naming scheme, like Eagle, Turbot, and Market?

Also, it's not important, but I believe that both QUT and Parliament House have their addresses on George Street, although you're correct in that they're at or near the corner of George and Alice Streets. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 07:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Peer Review #2

Since the last peer review I put up a couple of years ago failed MISERABLY, I've thought it would be a great idea to put it up again, we could get some really constructive help to push the article in the right direction. Anyone agree/disagree? James Pinnell (talk) 08:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you're still around (Wikipedia:Meetup/Brisbane 2???). Sure, go ahead with a PR. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've done a lot of anonymous edits and some lurking, bit I figured it was time for an appearance ;) - I'll relodge a PR and we'll see what eventuates. James Pinnell (talk) 13:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I see an automated peer review was done using a javascript program. Automated review. What do people think of the suggestions generated by that program? Sting au Buzz Me... 02:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

By all means act on it, these things generally pick up MOS stuff that's useful. Peripitus has also added a review, which I'll get too at some stage (please beat me too it, guys!) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Done some work on this, but plenty more to do. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 05:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Local Government Areas

I think we should consider removing all but Brisbane from the LGA section of the Infobox. If I am in Logan, I wouldn't consider myself part of the state capital, similarly with Ipswich, Redcliffe, or Pine Rivers. Redlands perhaps, but really Brisbane is the City of Brisbane as defined by the City of Brisbane Act.

If we include Pine Rivers, Logan and Redlands, we could include the (soon to be former) Caboolture Shire. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 11:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

when they put together the data for the population of brisbane, they include all the surrounding cities and shires like redlands, logan ipswich etc. If you look at sydney, its split up into many different areas, so I think they should stay. Really the surrounding areas use brisbane for many things, and vice versa, so really we form a whole larger city, that people refer to as brisbane, though it has different names for different areas.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tristan 753 (talk • contribs) 12:25, February 24, 2008

That's fine. There needs to be care taken then with information about the City of Brisbane Act then (which I included in the lead). I'm not sure the best route to go with that one. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 13:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nicholas Perkins, that the other LGAs should be removed from the infobox. Ipswich, Logan and Redcliffe are their own cities and are not part of the city of Brisbane. - Shiftchange (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Media section

This section could do with some mention of the multitude of community radio stations that operate in Brisbane. --Aioth (talk) 07:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeh good ide, like 4ZZZ etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tristan 753 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Climate table

It was noted here that a climate table similar to the one at Wagga Wagga, New South Wales#Climate would help. Anyone wanna go for it? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll stick something together tonight. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 07:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

And that's done. The data is only from 1994-2007 as they moved their reporting station in 1994. Without actual yearly data it is impossible to combine the two (and might not be representative. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 11:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice work! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 09:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I"m just wondering why the shift to climate data is from the Brisbane Aero station? The older table quoted that from the Brisbane Regional station, and i believe that this should still be the case as not only is the data collected closer to the actual center of the city but the collection period is quite a bit lengthier. The new design is certainly preferable though. $eti (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Brisbane Regional was closed in 1994, while temperature data is only available up to 1986. There were two Brisbane Aeros, with first closing in 2000 and the second opening that in 1992. The choices of operating recording locations is Brisbane Aero, Archerfield or Redlands. I felt that Brisbane Aero was a better choice. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 04:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BCEC images

As part of Brisbane's Wikimania bid, the Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre have kindly released a number of images into the public domain for us to use on the bid. However, since they're PD, they can probably also be used here. I have put together a little gallery on Commons:

• commons:User:Lankiveil/Brisbane

Hopefully someone finds this useful. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC).

Oh wow, very nice. I'll get someone to get the OTRS stuff done and then add them in. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 11:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reviewed and Accepted as a Good Article

So since I've requested a GA review, it's only equable for me to give one. I choose this article because it's a place I've been to at least once in my life.

1. Standard of writing

• clear prose, correct spelling and grammar
• brief, informative lead
• lists are incorporated

2. Verifiability

• 62 references, none of them blogs
• No contentious material relating to living persons

3. Breadth

• Just about every aspect about a city is covered and it answers all the questions coming to my mind
• One aspect is not covered: the defence of Brisbane. This may link to the historical issue of the Brisbane Line. Please tell us what military assets (defence establishments, etc) are available to secure and defend the city by air, land and sea/river.
• I would also like to know if any part of it has ever been threatened by any significant bushfires. I presume drought is not an issue. Do swarms of cane toads cause problems at any time of year, similar to the way legions of Bogong moths descend on Sydney and Canberra at seasonal times?
• The history section makes no observations for the period 1942-1982 and 1988 onward
• Who does it have local government Sister city arrangements with?
• Tell us about the existence of any national parks within its vast area

4. Neutral

• Yes, it's not a public relations piece and not an attack piece

5. Stability

• History shows collaboration between editors

6. Illustration

• You have a CBD map and an aerial view of the river but no illustration that demonstrates the full 5900km2. Remedy this.
• Otherwise there are many other appropriate and well-placed images with explanatory captions

Good article.Prisoner Of Integrity (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Brisbane_GA. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA reassessment

This article's GA status has been challenged. Click the link for areas that are still in need of improvement. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Water Usage

The article currently states that the water restrictions has had the effect of "giving Brisbane the lowest per capita usage of water of any Western city in the world." I have added a cite on this, but it's not too detailed, so if anyone can link to some hard figures on this, that would be great. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC).

I thought I removed this statement; I certainly intended to. I don't think it's citable, and it could easily suffer from Recentism. I think removing it would be a good idea. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on recentism. I suspected that it wasn't really verifiable, but optimistically hoped that someone would prove me wrong =). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Rewriting the lead?

It was brought up in the GA review that the lead of the article is a little choppy, which is something that I happen to agree with. I have come up with an alternate version that I think flows a little better, using Canberra and Hobart for inspiration:

Thoughts? The buildings and institutions listed at the end are purely drawn "out of a hat" as t'were, so if anyone can think of more encompassing institutions, I'm happy to take suggestions. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC).

Seems OK at a glance, though I would suggest we get the article where we want it in terms of content before the lead. The lead should reflect the rest of the article, which is tough if we haven't done the rest of the article fully! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, but I think the structure of the article is fine as it is, as far as I can see the changes that need to be made are primarily re-writes for style and the inclusion of additional citations, not the insertion of any major new information or content. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC).

Agree that this will need work as new things are added to the article, but I think this would be a good place to start future leads from. It would complement the current article and could be updated as new pieces are added.Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 10:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brisbane Cricket Ground/Gabba

While the 'Gabba is formally known as the Brisbane Cricket Ground, no-one in Brisbane and no-one in Cricket or Australian football circles ever uses the term. I would lay London to a brick that most Brisbanites would not know the 'Gabba had a formal name. Insisiting on formality here is misleading and confusing to the lay reader. If I was up for an argument I would propose renaming the BCG (BCG, who calls it the BCG?) article as well. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm in Brisbane and you're right that everyone here calls it The Gabba. No one ever uses Brisbane Cricket Ground or BCG. I see on the Brisbane Lions article they refer to playing their home games at the G which is short for Gabba of course.--Sting au Buzz Me... 07:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well that's a concern, since the MCG is also known to Victorians as the G. The Gabba I would be fine with. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 08:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, it looks like I'm being outvoted, although I think the correct name should be used here. --Dmol (talk) 09:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is a consensus yet. Let's sit on this for a few days, there is no hurry to make a permanent decision. Perhaps a wider view may be needed. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I do know the Gabba has a formal name, but yeah, I agree that we should refer to it as Gabba...much more common...who does call it BCG? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Does it matter who calls it the Gabba? "It is the only name that most Queenslanders know" does not matter, this is not queensland.wikipedia it is a world wide english.wikipedia. JayKeaton (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine, who anywhere, other that the Gabba Trust, calls it the Brisbane Cricket Ground? From WP:NAME, "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." For a specific example of this principle see the article name for the New Zealand national rugby team - "All Blacks" Like the All Blacks, The Gabba is a special case where the colloquial name is the most appropriate. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[of wikipedia] calls it the Brisbane Cricket Ground, [none] of Wikipedia uses Gabba. Not to mention that you are disturbing Wikipedia guidelines by having a link saying one thing leading to another. JayKeaton (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia as a source is a self-reference and circular. The reason most articles link to Brisbane Cricket Ground is because the article (for now) is called that and editors have tried to avoid redirects. If you look at what links to Brisbane Cricket Ground, you will see that "The Gabba", currently a redirect page, is actually fairly heavily used given the attention normally given to avoiding redirects. I would suggest that if the links to Brisbane Cricket Ground are followed back, a large proportion are actualy written as "the Gabba" with a piped link to Brisbane Cricket Ground. See for example, Dick Reynolds and Bill O'Reilly where "gabba" is linked to the Brisbane Cricket Ground page. As for disturbing Wikipedia guidelines, can you show the guideline in question? Linking topics to differently named relevant articles is what piped links are for. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The type in "Brisbane Cricket Ground" has received 1331 hits this month, the type in "The Gabba" has received only 106. Anyway as for guidelines see Principle of least astonishment. Also according to WP:Intuitive the piped links are not very intuitive, as those who do not already know about the colloquial name of "the gabba" will not understand that is it is referring to the Brisbane Cricket Ground unless they click on the link, and if they print the article they will never know what "the gabba" means as the actual, legal, accurate and most factual name of the grounds will be lost. And finally colloquialism and slang should not be used to hide the actual links as it is just purely unprofessional and misleading, hindering the usefulness of the link for anyone outside of Australia. JayKeaton (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You think it is "purely unprofessional and misleading"? I just checked your user page and you have userboxes that state you have made 320,000 edits (it's 4045) and that you've been nominated for the Nobel Peace prize 57 times? --Sting au Buzz Me... 06:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

My user page is my own page to do what I like with, and it's not a main namespace articles so Wikipedia policy and guidelines do not apply to me. But my user page is not the topic of discussion here. JayKeaton (talk) 07:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:USER. Your userpage is for anything that is compatible with the Wikipedia project. You can't actually do what you like with it. Just like any other page on Wikipedia anyone can view it and in some instances make edits to it. The userboxes I mentioned look to me like WP:NONSENSE? That guideline tells me that editors may remove such material to article talk pages OR in fact user talk pages. So I've hardly begun and already see guidelines you say do not apply to you? I'm sorry but it's just hard for me to take your comments of colloquialism being unprofessional and misleading seriously when you display such nonsense on your very own userpage.--Sting au Buzz Me... 10:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If you really wish to discuss these, then please talk about it on my talk page instead of the Brisbane articles talk page. And WP:NONSENSE doesn't apply to talk pages. Please keep this talk page related to Brisbane. And it doesn't look like you have anything to say about the Brisbane Cricket Ground links, despite directing me to the talk page in your edit summary, so I correct them again. JayKeaton (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't in my edit summary so I think you mean someone else. As for my comments on the Brisbane Cricket Ground links I thought I gave my view in the second post of this section.--Sting au Buzz Me... 06:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I assumed that was your edit summary from memory, I should have checked. JayKeaton (talk) 10:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The venue's logo shows the name as being "The Gabba", and the Queensland Government's Major Sports Facility Authority website refers to the ground as "The Gabba" see here for these two. On the [history page for the ground, I quote "The Brisbane Cricket Ground is better known as 'The Gabba'". Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 04:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If "The Gabba" is the official name for it and "Brisbane Cricket Ground" is the colloquial name for it then the article Brisbane Cricket Ground needs to me moved to The Gabba and all instance of "Brisbane Cricket Ground" (except a short sentence that explains that "Brisbane Cricket Ground" is a nickname for it) all over Wikipedia needs to be changed to "The Gabba". I'm astounded that for so long Wikipedia has been refering to The Gabba by its "Brisbane Cricket Ground" nickname for so long. Per Wikipedia guidelines we must remove most of colloquial uses of "Brisbane Cricket Ground" and use the official name for it instead. JayKeaton (talk) 05:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the mature response. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 07:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I feel that it would be appropriate to move this discussion to Talk:Brisbane Cricket Ground. The discussion is in regards to the naming of the article. If there needs to be discussion to bring about consensus on using the term "The Gabba" in the Brisbane article, it would make sense to have that remain here. I will create a heading over on the Brisbane Cricket Ground talk page with a note about the discussion here. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 07:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made a request at WP:RM, for the record. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redcliffe

I have have removed the following sentence...

"The settlement grew from a penal colony established at his direction in 1824 at Redcliffe, 28 kilometres (17.4 mi) to the north."

It is incorrect to suggest that the settlement in Brisbane 'grew' from the settlement in Redcliffe. These are separate settlements. The settlement in Redcliffe was closed when they moved to Brisbane. Furthermore, it is incorrect to suggest that Redcliffe is 28kms north of Brisbane. Redcliffe is a total of 3km north of Brisbane separated only by the Petrie river. Aggressivesecularist (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, yes you are correct in that the settlement moved to Brisbane – it was left and abandoned until the 1860s. However, if the "BS" is correct as it was written, in that the settlement moved to "the current location of the Brisbane CBD" at North Quay, then it is "28 kilometres (17.4 mi) to the north". Redcliffe (or the former Redcliffe City Council area to be correct in this context) is immediately north of the Brisbane City Council municipal area across Bramble Bay, however the first settlement location is actually a measurable 28 km north of the second settlement location, between Humpybong Creek in Redcliffe and North Quay in the Brisbane central business district. I'll reinstate this with some clarification and improvements from further research with citations.  SEO^{75 [talk]} 03:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"Petrie River"? Where is that? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Pine River is meant.  SEO^{75 [talk]} 04:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)