Talk:Canberra

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Canberra is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 24, 2006.
Flag
Portal
 Canberra 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.
Featured article FA Quality: FA-Class
Top Importance: Top
This article is supported by WikiProject Canberra.
Assessment comments
This article is supported by WikiProject Cities, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to cities, towns, and various other settlements on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the priority scale.
Peer review This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

Contents

[edit] Photos?

I created User:Astrokey44/Canberra to show some alternative photos to use. I think the photos should show more notable places in Canberra, such as Telstra Tower, Lake Burley Griffin, Floriade, War Memorial etc.. Perhaps they have been tried to be avoided because theyre cliches, but national buildings are the most important photos to show I think in an article about a national capital. Astrokey44 08:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The images in the article were choosen to illustrate specific things- those in the history section for example are clearly releated to history; and other images were choosen to illustrate different aspects of Canberra. Any image changes should be incorporated into the structure of the article and I'm not opposed to changing or rotating images, but the page you've put together looks disorganised and the images don't relate to the text.--nixie 08:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the example page is disorganised. However, perhaps you exchange one of the three pictures of houses for something a little bit more descriptive :). In the culture section, say?--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Good choice nixie.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to add the war memorial too, but all the images I have found are lopsided, which is irritating since it is a beautiful symmetrical building.--nixie 09:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I've noticed that in Canberra photo's as well. It is very unfortunate because, as you say, Canberra's beauty is in its symmetry.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
A simple shape displayed in an eye-catching way.
A simple shape displayed in an eye-catching way.

Most large buildings are symmetrical along at least one axis. Photographs emphasising symmetry are boring. The photograph of the National Library (a highly formal and symmetrical building) is an excellent one because it shows it at an interesting angle. The eye can easily see that it is doubly symmetrical; we don't need to club the viewer over the head with it. But examples of symmetrical cities are extremely rare, and long, wide photographs along the land axis help illustrate this. The photograph from Mount Ainslie is good, but the labelling is intrusive. If it were annotated like this example it would be a winner. --Surgeonsmate 22:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I still think its more important to have photos of significant Canberra symbols even it doesnt perfectly match the text. I like how youve added the National Library and telstra tower photos. Theres still a white space at the start of the article, which I think would look good with a warmemorial-anzac parade-parliamenthouses photo. The one I had in mine was cropped from another photo, so the quality isnt the best, but a higher quality shot there would look great. Astrokey44 09:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I have a few very good quality photos of the War memorial-Anzac Pde-Parl House Axis that we could use, but I need to email somebody overseas to ask for permission. Give me a couple of days to get back to you. Adz 23:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
A better ANU photo is a must as the current one is meaningless unless you happen to be one of the people in the photo. Garglebutt / (talk) 23:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I'll try to get some good photos around and about Canberra. I thought of trying for a nice photo of the Canberra Hospital, too. It has that funky wavy roof on the new section. Anyone have any suggestions? I'm not overly impressed with the photo of the National Museum, either. It's a great photo, but I think an external photo would be better. Thoughts? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Politas (talk • contribs) 01:08, 7 February 2006.
The photograph of the Nat Museum is colourful and interesting, but it's slanted and it more properly belongs in an article about the building. In this article about the city of Canberra, I feel that photographs should lean towards showing buildings within the context of the city. The museum building could be shown as a whole in its lakeside setting, perhaps with Telstra Tower or Parliament House in the background, depending on angle. And much as I personally detest that big orange loop, it is a highly visible landmark and it would be great if a visitor to Canberra saw it and immediately thought "Hey, I saw that in Wikipedia!" --Surgeonsmate 22:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Reviewing the photographs in the article, two things stand out. One is that there is this big chunk of white space at the top of the article. This should be filled with something iconic. Telstra Tower, Parliament House, War Memorial, maybe the Carillon. There are good images of these available. Two - that Museum photograph really sucks. It is tilted and confused. --Surgeonsmate 18:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Tilted, yes, it is a little. What do you mean by "confused"? I thought that shot was good because it shows quite a bit of the museum's layout and places it in a context with the surrounding lake. It includes the big orange loop thingy without overshadowing other architectural features. There are other images available in the Commons, do you think there are better ones? It's a difficult building to photograph well, due to its sprawling layout and surrounding trees. If only I had a cherry picker handy! I can rotate the current image to stop it being tilted (I have the original from which that image was cropped), but I won't bother if people don't consider the image to be useful. --Myk 23:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
National Museum
National Museum
It's OK as a photograph if you know what you are looking at. To someone reading the article for information it is a mass of buildings glimpsed through the trees. No other landmarks are visible. Apart from the lakeshore, it could be any park area. I appreciate the effort you have gone to and your intention in taking a photo showing as much as possible, but it's not a great picture of the museum. Something like this, perhaps in daylight would be better. --Surgeonsmate 00:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Yep. I have considered that angle. Needs to be taken in the morning, and when I was out snapping shots it was afternoon. I'll try to get a shot from Commonwealth bridge or such in the morning soon. --Myk 07:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I had also thought there was something wrong with the photograph. Perhaps it is the building itself rather than the photo!, but anyway this might be a better shot which shows the arch closer. Also the white space at the top is not there when you hide the contents, I think some users may choose to hide contents in preferences -- Astrokey44|talk 02:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Building rather than photograph. Nobody ever has a problem taking a good photograph of Parliament House or the War Memorial. --Surgeonsmate 06:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Commonwealth of Australia" rather than just "Australia"

This seems to break the principle of calling things by their common name. I read that first line and immediately went "huh? So Canberra is not the capital of regular Australia then?". I soon realised of course that CoA is regular Australia, but with its formal title

As a comparison, take a look at London, Paris and Moscow (just the first three I happened to check, where we write "United Kingdom" rather than "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", "France" rather than "French Republic" and "Russia" rather than "Russian Federation".

Hence I am reverting. Pcb21| Pete 11:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

fuck off you are you pinga, 300 baaaa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.247.151 (talk) 11:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compared with other featured articles on cities

This table comes from Talk:Seattle,_Washington#Comparison_of_topics_and_size_with_other_city_Featured_Articles and might give some hints about missing information.--A Y Arktos (Talk) 02:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of topics and size with other city Featured Articles

  Sarajevo Johannesburg Newark, New Jersey Marshall, Texas San Jose, California Seattle, Washington Canberra
History Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Geography Yes Partial Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Climate Yes Yes     Yes Yes Yes
Bodies of water         text Sub-page Yes
Demographics Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Government Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Crime   Yes     text text there is now - thanks nixie.
Utilities         Yes Yes Yes
Sports Yes table text   Yes Yes Yes
Museums, etc. text   Yes   Yes Yes Yes
Medicine           Yes Health
Neighborhoods Divisions Divisions Yes   Yes Sub-page Yes
Street layout       Yes   Sub-page Yes
Economy Yes Yes   Yes Yes Yes Yes
Notable natives Yes   text Yes Yes Sub-page mentioned in history
Parks         text Sub-page not really
Music           text Culture and entertainment
Newspapers Yes Yes     Yes Yes Media
Radio Yes       Yes Yes Media
TV Yes       Yes Yes Media
Transportation Yes Yes     Yes Yes yes
Colleges Yes Yes text List Yes text yes
Schools Yes       Yes text yes
Libraries         Yes Sub-page sort of
Suburbs   Yes     Link to county#cities Sub-page yes
Sister cities       text Yes Sub-page yes
City in literature       text   Sub-page no, but is there anything to say? is it necessary?
Trivia     Yes Yes     No, but do we need it?
Infobox   Yes     Yes Yes yes
Division box Yes       Yes Yes
Article size 32K 27K 30K 24K 50K 34K 42 k as at 5 NovK

[edit] Comment on analysis

It looks like we're pretty complete. Trivia sections and lists of notable inhabitants used to be ok for FAs, but those type of sections are routinely objected to on FAC, they're absent from the recently featured but yet to appear on the main page Cleveland, Ohio and Ann Arbor, Michigan. On parks, the Canberra Nature Parks are mentioned, but mabye we should knock together a parks in Canberra article to summarise the content of Category:Canberra parks and gardens.--nixie 04:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

If Canberra is considered a "bush city" then it would seem logical to me to include parks, public commons and other 'recreational' areas. The large green areas around the 'mall' area (the area running from Old Parliament house to Lake Burley Griffen) would be a start. I'd like help writing the parks section but it's been a few years since ive been to Canberra. Razol2 11:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Canberra is just one big park any way, why do we need another section for it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.247.151 (talk) 11:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] turned over?

"Between 1996 and 2001, 61.9% of the population turned over, which is the second highest rate of any Australian capital city." -- what does this mean - turn over??? Astrokey44 05:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

It means that 61.9% of the people in Canberra at the time of the census weren't there for the last census.--nixie 06:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
sorry, I still dont get it? so it means that there has been alot of migration/ high birth rate/ death rate or what??? Astrokey44 14:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
It means what nixie said. It doesn't try to answer the question of why the population churn is as high as it is. I take it you want the article to say why? Pcb21| Pete 19:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Population turnover measures gross moves in relation to the size of the population. It's not a difficult demographic concept, read the refernce for more details, section Population turnover and redistribution, for more details.--nixie 21:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Ok it makes more sense now. My first thought when reading it was that something had been left out, and it meant to say "population turned over.. 40 " Is it normal to use turnover in the sense (cant remember my high school english what sense it is) that population "turned over" - Ive removed that bit and put a wikilink to turnover Astrokey44 00:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Why not talk in terms of population "mobility", rather than "turn over" paddington62 March 22 2006

I'm not sure about Australian English or other standards of English, but in British English one can use the word turnover to describe throughput but one cannot use the term 'turned over' in this sense. For example one can say 'firm X had a turnover of £10 million' but not 'firm X turned over £10 million'. The above sentence makes it sound as though 61.9% of the population were sleeping on one side and turned over to the other, or started ballancing on their head. Booshank 11:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "half-caste"?

In the History section, the term 'half-caste' is used:

By the 1870s, the indigenous population was largely absorbed into European culture through half-caste marriages.

It struck me as a potentially offensive term, something which was corroborated by my dictionary (Oxford American). Any objection to changing this to 'mixed marriages' or something of the like? Salvo 21:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I think not only is the statement poorly worded, it may not be correct. For the moment commented out pending further research. I have a book on reserve at the library which is a recent history of the local aboriginal people (The Kamberri : a history from the records of aboriginal families in the Canberra-Queanbeyan district and surrounds 1820-1927 and historical overview 1928-2001 by Ann Jackson-Nakano, published in 2001). I will see what that has to say.
The same author has published this month (November 2005) Ngambri Ancestral Names: for geographical places and features in the Australian Capital Territory and Surrounds. The work is well-referenced with "European" sources, for example early surveyors' field books and letters, past local histories, family papers of early settlers. It is also endorsed by present day representatives of the Ngambri people, the indigineous people of the area. It does not deal with the history of the indigineous population and their interaction with European settlers except in passing or as relevant to place names.--A Y Arktos (Talk) 22:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I had the same queries about this block of text- it predates the reorganisation of this article and was never sourced and has since made its way into History of the ACT (where I have also removed it for the time being). I'll be interested to hear what you find out.--nixie 23:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
It's also Eurocentric (if that's the right term). It would be just as true to say that, in the case of those colonists who mated with indigenous people, the European population was absorbed into the indigenous population. It depends on one's frame of reference. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by JackofOz (talk • contribs) 00:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Not necessarily if the indigenous people who married Europeans adopted a European-based culture and so did their children. This is what often or usually happens where a more primitive culture comes into contact with a more advanced one. Another example would be the so-called Coloureds of South Africa who are genetically a mix of European, Khoi-Khoi and Malay but who have a language and culture very similar to the Afrikaners with virtually no trace of indigenous Khoi-Khoi incluence. Booshank 11:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not put "partially assimilated" without defining that genetically or any other way. Half-caste is a term totally not appropriate to Oz as its from India re the caste system there.

Maybe we wont change it because "half-caste" is what they where known as during the 19th & 20th centuries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.247.151 (talk) 11:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Names of Russell and Barry Drive

Although I lived in Canberra for many years, one thing I never knew was, who was the Russell after whom the suburb Russell is named? And who was the Barry after whom Barry Drive was named? Surely not Sir Redmond Barry? JackofOz 06:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Most suburb and street names can be found on this website but unfortunately there is no information about Russell. Barry Drive - you got it - Sir Redmond. -- Adz 07:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I checked the website about Russell - N/A. I also checked the street name Russell Drive, and it says "Name associated with the locality for many years; the name was given to an adjacent trigonometrical station by Surveyor Scrivener in c. 1910, and later adopted as the name for an early settlement in the locality." But this just deepens the mystery. Just who was this Russell that Scrivener knew or knew of? What did he/she do to deserve having a trig station named after them? JackofOz 11:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Could it be one of the Earl of Bedfords as listed at the Russell disambig page? ---- Astrokey44|talk 11:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Diagram?

Diagram of Parliamentary axis of Canberra, showing main buildings
Diagram of Parliamentary axis of Canberra, showing main buildings

Used this nice photo to make a diagram. Would this work in the article? I tried a couple types of text (see earlier version of file too) ---- Astrokey44|talk 11:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought I would give it a try with white text, I will upload it over your version, but if you don't like it feel free to revert it. --Martyman-(talk) 12:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok sure, the programs Ive got dont do the shadow text properly. that does look better ---- Astrokey44|talk 12:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, it does look better in larger views but the text is worse in the small thumbnail, maybe I needed to make the text a bit bigger.. --Martyman-(talk) 12:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Looks ok. I'm not sure what value there is in labelling Woden, and I've never heard of the Carillion being called the "National Carillion". Myk 06:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I just happened to be there yesterday. That's what it's called. Kinda weird isn't it? -- Adz|talk 07:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it's not. It is spelt "Carillon", even if it is pronunced "carillion". Minor point, but if we're being picky, we should be seriously picky. --Surgeonsmate 11:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
My mistake. "National Carillon" it is. --Myk 15:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
This spelling is mentioned at Talk:National Carillon -- Astrokey44|talk 08:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weird notes

Does anyone know why note 14 links to an ABS paper on tourism in the ACT when it should link to information on schools? Does anyone know where it should actually link?--nixie 02:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Panorama

On looking closely at the panorama from the top of Telstra Tower, it has a very good encyclopedic purpose, and that is to show the overall setting of Canberra against the distant hills and mountains of New South Wales to left and right. The dispersed, park-like nature of the city shows well. I agree that it was not well placed in its previous location, but at the end of the article it is out of the way and will load last.

There are some stitch lines visible, but it is a beautiful photograph otherwise. Some of the other photographs are very ordinary. Comments? --Surgeonsmate 09:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

If it was to go in, I think it would be better above Notes and External links. -- Astrokey44|talk 09:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image fullstops

I have removed fullstops from the image descriptions that had included them (it was a mixed bag) so that they are consistent. Others may this it is better for all them to include fullstops but I think it looks a little neater and imposes less of the main article text. I do think some of the image descriptions are a tad long and the removal of some words such as Canberra could be done to tighten them. I don't think anyone is going to be confused about what town we are talking about. Garglebutt / (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trams

The sentence about trams probably needs to be sourced on two counts. There must be third world cities of millions without histories of trams. And did WBG propose trams? --Surgeonsmate 10:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I just don't see the relevance of the statement. We don't have a monorail or buildings over x stories either. Garglebutt / (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I also don't see the relevance of the statistic about area. I've had a quick browse of quite a few Europen cities and confirmed that many are much more compact and have larger populations. The two statistics seem to contradict one another. I can't work out whether it is trying to say that Canberra is large not to have trams or small not to have trams. (Interestingly, Moscow has 10 million people, and is only a little bit larger than Canberra by area. - If anything, I think that the statement explains why Canberra doesn't have trams, but that only makes sense when you compare it to other cities. I'd be in favour of either deleting the sentence or rewriting it to simply say that there are no trams in Canberra. -- Adz|talk 10:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"There must be third world cities of millions without histories of trams." You'll be surprised, I know of many third world cities which *have* had trams, such as Bangok and Singapore. On the other hand, there are third world cities of millions such as Kuala Lumpa which were only a fraction of their postwar size before the war, so could not sustain a tramway. And Canberra is not a third world city.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian)(talk)

I wasn't at all surprised, actually. I looked up some 3W cities and found trams, but it looked like a safe bet that there were some large cities without them and therefore the statement was untrue. My impression is that this is a POV statement from some Canberran trying to whip up support for the tramway or light rail system beloved of environmentalists (as a way of killing off car usage). European cities are usually far higher density than Australian and do not have the room for every residence to store and operate a car. Not when most central accomodation is five-story apartment buildings without underground carparks. The older portions of Australian cities are much higher density than newer, with rows of terrace houses. Canberra, on the other hand, was far too small in its younger days to sustain a tram network. If WBG envisaged trams, he also envisaged much higher density than eventually occurred during Canberra's great expansion fifty years later when cars and a quarter acre block were the norm for the young families flocking to the city. --Surgeonsmate 18:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Many of the European cities you have mentioned have *retained* trams, as opposed to just having a history of them. Before the war, it was unusual for large cities (if that includes *both* population and area) not to posess tramway networks. All state capitals in Australia have had trams, in fact, Canberra is the only federal capital in the western world that I know to be without a history of trams, Paris abandoned then before the war, and trams have reccently returned to the northern Paris suburb of Saint Dennis. Some think that trams never existed anywhere in Italy, but they do have a history there, Rome, Milano, and Turin still have multi-line networks. Before the war even a city of very low desity (many of Canberra's wide medians were actually designed with trams in mind) often had them and they were common throughout the Americas where even at the time, lower densities were common.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian)(talk)

Canberra doesn't have aquaduct (doesn't have an aquaduct!) but I wouldn't mention it. Other than to avid tram enthusiasts, is it a note worthy fact for the article? Unless someone has a good argument otherwise, I'll remove the no trams comment.
The area occupied is an interesting stat as it shows that Canberra population has very low density for a capital city which is a lifestyle fact. Garglebutt / (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
As I noted above, Canberra has always had a very low population density compared with the bigger and older cities. WBG may have intnded for there to be tramlines running down the main avenues, but they never happened, nor are they likely to. Not unless we build a lot of high density housing within walking distance of Northbourne Avenue and so on. I say either find a good source for historical trams that were more than a pipedream, or leave trams out entirely.
We do, however, have an aqueduct, or at least a sewerduct running over Commonwealth Avenue Bridge. Two of those pylons double as ventilation stacks. --Surgeonsmate 13:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the comment about Canberra being unusual for not having trams is inaccurate. When trams were in their heyday Canberra did not have a population of 300k (it was lucky to have 10k). The city only reached the 300k mark in the 1980's, by which time plenty of cities had closed their tram systems. If you're comparing like-with-like (to establish how unusual the absence of trams were) you would have to compare cities of 300k in the 1980's, or towns of 10k in the 1920's. At neither time would canberra's lack of trams be considered unusual.

I just checked the heritage maps of Canberra held by the ACT Heritage Unit in Macarthur House - yes Griffin intended "streetcars" in some suburbs. Particularly in the area now known as Deakin and Yarralumla. This was picked up by the bureaucrats who redesigned bits of the Griffin plan between 1913 and the 1920s - this is why Limestone, Ainslie and Canberra Aves are so wide - they were intended to have tram lines down the middle in reservation. Northbourne Ave is as wide as it is because that was intended to be the route of the heavy gauge train line north towards Yass. Paddington62 01:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Is the ACT Heritage Unit any relation to the ACT Heritage Library out at Woden? Antoinette Buchanan, who runs the latter, is an invaluable source of arcane information, and is frequently quoted in the Capital Circle column. --Surgeonsmate 06:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canberra is not the only planned city

It conveys a wrong impression to write that Canberra is, "unusual amongst Australian capital cities as an entirely purpose-built, planned city" because Adelaide was planned and laid out and to a great extent so was Melbourne.Norm Tered

Yes they were. However, it is unusual to the extent that the majority were not.--cj | talk 00:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
And for that matter, so was Brisbane. The difference I think is that the others were new settlements within new or expanding colonies and in that sense the planning that took place was incidental to colonial settlement. It consisted primarilly of surveying roads and blocks within which development would occur. (Granted, in the case of Adelaide this was done to a greater extent than had been done previously and also included provision for parks). Canberra was different in that no only was it a purposely designed national capital built from scratch, but there was also a master plan which considered the location of government buildings, parks, commercial precincts, housing stock etc. In that sense, it was both a land use plan and a master plan.
Though I do agree with you Norm, Adelaide was definitely planned to a greater degree than most other Australian cities. -- Adz|talk 00:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Canberra was probably the only Australian city purpose built for the motor car. --Biatch 05:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Being a planned city, Canberra's growth during the 1910-1926 period from a rural landscape to a national capital was remarkable. However when one of the local farmers in the district at the time was asked his thoughts, he responded "A good sheep station ruined!". PAS 03:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Burly Griffen designed Griffith also. Was it Griffith? One town down that way.

No, it was Marion Mahony Griffin (Walter's wife) who designed the layouts for Griffith and Leeton. Interestingly, if you look at maps of both these towns, you can clearly see a) the common elements with Canberra's initial layout, and b) where Marion's design ended and the local councils took over as the towns expanded.
Also, it is a common mistake that the Canberra design was Griffin's work only - it was a joint entry from both of them (they met while working together for Frank Lloyd Wright). I have edited the history section and opening paragraph to reflect this.
Re the sheep station comment, this was actually from Lady Gertrude Denman 59.167.59.181 08:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Keir.


[edit] Missed the vibe

I have to say that this article manages to be informative and well-written while competely missing the vibe of the joint. It doesn't describe the incredible sparseness that Canberra projects, both in the Parliamentary Triangle and the wider city. It completely misses the rather odd road layout (at least to those familiar with other Australian cities). And it manages to completely avoid Canberra's reputation amongst other Australians. --Robert Merkel 03:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right, although I think that it would be difficult to describe 'the vibe' in the article because, to a large degree, much of it is subjective. The bit about Canberra's 'reputation among other cities' would be subjective and may be viewed as contentious by many Canberran editors.
The Suburbs of Canberra article describes some of what you describe, albeit admittedly, not very well. It says:
As a result of these commercial and community facilities being located in the centre of suburbs, Canberra lacks strip shopping along major roads and appears to be ‘empty’ to most visitors. In the older areas, major roads are lined with houses, and in the newer areas they are typically landscaped with mounds of earth and vegetation to form ‘parkways’.
Perhaps the 'Urban Structure' section can be tweaked a little bit, but I wouldn't go over board. Given that it is on the front page at the moment, I'd suggest that it might be wise to discuss any suggested changes here first. -- Adz|talk 05:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
People from London would think Canberra is grimy??? Kransky
That Canberrans might not like the attitude that many outside their city have to the place is understandable. That they are proud of their city is admirable. That the reputation might be undeserved is debatable. That it exists shouldn't be hard to establish; I'm sure appropriate quotes from newspaper columnists and the like can be found. --08:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
This is a very subjective issue, I really think it depends where one comes from. To someone from a newer city I'm sure Canberra would appear perfectly normal and acceptable, whereas an older city such as London would appear ugly, overcrowed and grimy. At least this is how I feel, as someone from a newer settlement of South Africa.
What you may not be appreciating is that Canberra also has a reputation as a) an overgrown country town, b) a cultural desert, and c) a place where nothing of value is actually created and is completely isolated from the actual concerns of "real Australians" whom Canberra leeches off. This perception is eagerly fed by state politicians, particularly in Queensland and Western Australia. --Robert Merkel 11:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but is that uninformed reputation something that should be added to an encyclopedia article? Wikipedia is not a rumour mill. --Myk 23:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A balanced view

This is a great page and a lot of work has gone into it, but it reads like a PR firm's brochure of Canberra. A more balanced approach, perhaps some grounded, factual criticisms or fallacies of Canberra would be appreciated. All statistics listed in this page are positive, any negative ones are omitted, especially about crime. There are many reports floating around referencing Canberra's social problems and issues arising out of planned public housing mistakes and so forth. Just a thought. Wampusaust 23:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coordinates don't match

The text in the top right hand corner says 35°16′58″S, which gives 35°17′S if rounded to the nearest minute, whereas the info box says 35°18′S... Which is it?

I would have expected better from a Featured article :-) SteveRwanda 08:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh these annoying edit conflicts!!! Steve, I was just making the same point, but you slipped in before me;) Anyway, I was also going to say I realise that a minute of arc on the Earth's surface is less than 2km, but this discrepancy does niggle. --A bit iffy 08:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, in that case the putting in of seconds would seem to be rather superfluous. Presumably these coordinate things in the top corner are some new policy? — SteveRwanda 08:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you have a point about the seconds as a second of arc is only around 30 metres!! Anyway, I do actually think this new feature (lat & long at top right) is quite a nice touch. Apparently it's been in use on the Portuguese and German Wikipedias for a while - see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates#Coordinates_at_the_top_of_the_article. --A bit iffy 08:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics

In the section about the origin of non-Australian born residents, the article talks about the United Kingdom and Scotland. Surely Scotland is part of the United Kingdom. --Rich 21:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


Err, something that you might want to have a look at is the current population of Canberra... According to this article posted by the ABC on the 19th of March this year (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/19/2194429.htm) Canberra's population has in fact reached 340 000, with a population growth of 1.5% over the last year. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devanika (talk • contribs) 02:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Categories and Subcategories

Articles should not usually be in both a category and its subcategory.[1]

This article is in categories: Australian capital cities | Canberra | Capitals in Oceania

Both Australian capital cities and Canberra are subcats of Capitals in Oceania

Canberra is an eponymous category here so it should stay. But is there any justification for Australian capital cities to stay as well. Excellent Featured Article though. Well done peeps. Frelke 08:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I have removed Australian capital cities from Capitals in Oceania category and added it back as an also see. Frelke 06:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Main page experience

Our main page experience resulted in excess of 100 edits but little change, and certainly no change of substance. Quite a bit of vandalism and prompt reversions. Now back to the quiet life and the gorgeous weather albeit way too dry.--A Y Arktos 01:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shopping?

I removed the text below which appeared in the 'Culture' section earlier today. I have a few concerns with it. Firstly, I don;t think it belongs in the cultre section. If anything, it could go it the 'Economy' section. Secondly though, I'm not sure that it belongs in the article at all. To my mind, shopping is an activity that is common to any settlement of reasonable size, and I'm not sure that it is notable enough to include a section on in a city article. I realise that there are articles about shopping centres on Wikipedia (and that this in itself is contentious), but I'm not sure that the Canberra ones are notable enough to mention in a section about shopping. Does anybody else have any views on this? -- Adz|talk 06:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Canberra has many large shopping centres spread throughout the Australian Capital Territory. CBD shopping is aided by the Canberra Centre, which is currently undergoing an upgrade that will dramatically improve CBD shopping. The other significant centres include Westfield Belconnen in Belconnen, Westfield Woden in Phillip, Tuggeranong Hyperdome in Greenway, Gungahlin Marketplace in Gungahlin and Riverside Plaza in Queanbeyan. Smaller shopping centres are located throughout the Canberra area.

It does some entirely superfluous given the shopping centres get coverage in the district and suburb articles and not sure why Riverside Plaza is in there. Garglebutt / (talk) 08:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economy

Yes, in a shortfall, there is technically nobody employed, but this is usually consistent with low unemployment (generally) rather than low employment; therefore, the word "although" is not needed. Drdr1989 20:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Road Funding difficulties

I restored the paragraph about the problems with funding Canberra's extensive road network. This information has been drawn from three sources - Cwlth Grants Commission reports, Annual Reports of ACT Dept of Urban Services and DOTARS's annual report on local government. Incidentally the average life expectancy of a major urban road is between 15 and 20 years. Many of Canberra's roads are well past that age now and if you look at them, you'll see they're quite degraded.Paddington62 11:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • There are a few problems with this section (1) It violates WP:NOT, we are not really supposed to write about things that could happen in the future in an encyclopedia article, x could happen if y happens is not very encyclopedic. (2) This long theory about the roads degrading beyond repair due to lack of funding increases the size and decreases relvance of the section so that transport is disporportionately long compared to other sections of the article (which are potentially more interesting to someone that isn't from Canberra). I wouldn't object to a concise, sourced, unqualified statement on road funding being added to the first paragraph in the transport section - but this is not it.--nixie 13:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canberra's so called "notorious" climate

The person who describes Canberra's climate as "notorious" obviously has not been to such cities like Moscow, St. Petersburg, Montréal, İstanbul, Ankara, Chicago, Teheran, Yerevan, Baghdad, New Delhi and others with a real notorious climate.

Of course, a "notorious" climate is subjective... I prefer the cold, for example. - The Smiley Faced man who is Happy.

It does have an ugly habit of changing with amazing swiftness, as I found out today. Spark 09:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
But far less so than Melbourne, for example. People often compare Canberra with the state capitals, all of which happen to be on the coast, whereas Canberra is inland. The fact is that Canberra's climate is not significantly different from that of many other inland cities such as Wagga Wagga, Bathurst, Bendigo, Ballarat, or Toowoomba. People from the state capitals invariably refer to the Canberra winter cold - but rarely refer to its fearsome summer heat. In this regard, it is no different from almost any other inland area in south-east Australia. Its legendary cold, in popular mythology, applies all year round - which is absolutely untrue. JackofOz 00:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Y Plan

I think the Canberra "Y Plan" didn't end with Belconnen and Gunghalin, as the article states -- it actually extended into New South Wales, and for quite a time the ACT was trying to get land from NSW for that purpose. A small point, but perhaps it should be in there?

see [2] for a bad diagram. I happened to be reading a book on Australian urban design today, and it had a more detailed map with names for all the areas etc, extending quite a way into NSW.

[edit] Most commonly used pronounciation

Hello, I would like to ask which pronounciation is most commonly used throughout Australia. Is it /ˈkæn.bɹə/ ('Can-bra') or /ˈkæm.bɹə/ ('Cam-bra')? Thank you in advance for you help. Best regards --Marbot 13:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Colloquially, it is most often pronounced Cam-bra, which I would say is used more commonly. Although, a slightly more definite pronounciation would be Can-bra, as I believe the 'er' in the word is semi-silent, but for normal conversation speaking, it would be Cam-bra. 60.229.179.39 00:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Surely the pronunciation is too varied to give any definite guide..? Personally I pronounce it as can-BER-uh or CAN-ber-uh; for me the middle syllable is always pronounced. The middle syllable is pronounced on the ABC news although others do not pronounce the middle syllable, who is to say which is correct or common? Are we going to say that Melbourne is pronounced as Mew-ben (L pronounced as W), which is how I often hear it pronounced by Melbournians.Mdgr 08:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

who is to say which is correct or common? Us (Canberrans), I guess. It took a while, though, the 3-syllable version kept being re-inserted for a time. The Cam-bra & Can-bra pronunciations are very similar I might add, almost an amalgam of the two, if that's possible (I'm in the Can camp). Can't say I've ever heard a Melburnian (or anyone else) say mew-bin, the Melb. article gives it as I've always heard it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.161.11.199 (talk) 06:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Cats

Can anyone work out why this article is appearing in the empty (and rightfully so) category Cities in the ACT? --Peta 04:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be a function of the Template:Infobox Australian Place. The category appeared when the template was added on 20 November. I don't pretend to fully understand the syntax, but the culprit seems to be this line in the template: act = [[Category: Cities in the Australian Capital Territory|{{{name}}}]] . Since it's never likely to be a useful category I suggest posting something on the template's talk page requesting the line be removed. Gimboid13 09:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timezone - AEST vs AEDT

Is the timezone AEDT during daylight saving? (as AEST = Australian Eastern Standard Time, so cannot change from +10 to +11)?

--203.52.176.26 03:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Towards 2020

The education section of this page needs to take into account the latest happenings of the ACT Government's 'Towards 2020' plan. Perhaps a list is needed of which schools are closing and when would be useful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lefty272 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

I think that level of detail would be better placed at Education in the Australian Capital Territory rather than this article. This article should just contain a summary oroverview of education in the city. -- Adz|talk 12:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

But it could be just mentioned with a link to the Education in the Australian Capital Territory page. Jaa? Rory for suomi 11:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have listed most of the changes in List of schools in the ACT sss333 06:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

How can be the pronunciation end in a schwa? Is that even possible? Surely the pronunciation should end in [a] or [ɑ] or something. Stevage 13:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


It's quite possible for words in English to end in schwa, think of 'panda' or 'shelter' (unstressed vowels in English tend towards schwa whatever their position in the word). Dougg
In my experience of having lived there for over 25 years, it's much more common to hear the schwa ending than the [a] ending. In fact, the most common pronunciation is "kambrə". JackofOz 03:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Successful" sporting teams

This is not a nitpick, but a serious question regarding this paragraph (highlighting mine):

  • In addition to local sporting leagues, Canberra has a number of sporting teams that compete in national and international leagues. The best known teams are the Canberra Raiders and the Brumbies who play rugby league and rugby union respectively, and who have both been champions of their leagues. Both teams play their home games at Canberra Stadium, which is Canberra's largest stadium and was used to hold preliminary soccer matches for the 2000 Summer Olympics and matches for the 2003 Rugby World Cup. Canberra also has a successful basketball team, the Canberra Capitals. The Canberra Capitals won the 2006 and 2007 women's basketball Grand Final.

Fair enough, the Capitals have won the past 2 years, so they're currently successful. Is this all this word is meant to indicate? It could also mean "has achieved success at some time in the past". What happens if they don't make the Grand Finals for the next 10 years - would it still be correct to call them "successful", then? And is this why the Raiders and the Brumbies are not so described, having been out of the winners' circle since 2004 (Brumbies) and 1990 (Raiders)? However, the Brumbies are the only Australian Super 14s team to win 2 finals, so doesn't this count as far as being called a "successful" team? JackofOz 07:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest successful means winning their Championship at some point, the Raiders and Brumbies successes having already been noted. Incidentally the Raiders last won in 1994, and given their current playing style, another barren 13 wouldn't surprise.

[edit] Surface Area

In this article the area of Canberra is given as 2396 square kilometres. This is actually larger than the land area of the ACT given on the ACT page! Does anyone have a better figure the area for metropolitan Canberra? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.203.48.28 (talk • contribs).

Note that I cannot find area for canberra, but 910square miles (that given for the ACT as whole on the ACT page) appears to be correct. (basis: http://www.nationalcapital.gov.au/downloads/education_and_understanding/factsheets/4Federation.pdf) --Nemo 05:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
update: I have reverted the given sq-km area to match the sq miles figure (converted using google calculator). This was accurate to an earlier revision in 2006, but I cannot verify if it is accurate to reality. All can be said is that [a] sq mi and sq km are now self consistent with each other, and [b] the given area is correctly smaller than that of the surrounding ACT. :) --Nemo 05:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Street name origin

I believe the following act government site would be a usefull link in the page - it allows searches for the origins of individual street names. Given that canberra's street naming convention has mention in the page already (and also has mention in the Street name page), this seems a usefull external link.

If agreed, someone with more experience perhaps can drop it into the page?

http://apps.actpla.act.gov.au/actlic/places/search/originsSearch_new.htm

--Nemo 04:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quick Correction.

Just made a quick grammar correction. Never edited Wikipedia before so didn't know whether to leave a not on here or not. Feel free to delete this if it's not necessary.

Alex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.173.138.92 (talk) 04:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] is this really notable?

The Group of Amateur Theatre Organisations (GATO) maintains a website, OffPrompt, that provides a newsboard where the amateur theatre community communicate opportunities.Michellecrisp (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

comment removed --Matilda talk 03:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Canberra and the ACT

Isn't there talk of making the city of Canberra coterminous with the whole of the Capital Territory? -24.149.203.34 (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no "City of Canberra" as a political entity - Canberra is just that part of the territory that has been absorbed into suburbia - so unless the suburbs encroach onto Namadgi, they can't really be coterminous. WA Burdett (talk) 01:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I deleted this:

"Perhaps because of the large educated population Canberra is seen as being a left-wing town, and has been labelled by commentators including Piers Ackerman the People's Republic of Canberra"

From the introduction. If anyone thinks it is important or relevant to the article please reinstate in usefully.Meow meow - purr purr (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ACT self-government election

The election for the first ACT self-government was on 4 March 1989, not in February as stated in the article. See Grundy, Philip, et al. Reluctant Democrats/The Transition to Self-Government in the Australian Capital Territory. Canberra: Federal Capital Press, 1996. p197. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.14.97 (talk) 12:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)