Talk:Clontarf, Queensland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
 Clontarf, Queensland 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian places.
This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Re: August 2007 (archived)

You haven't replied further as promised to our recent discussion about my edit to Clontarf, Queensland that you thought of as nonconstructive. Where-to from here?  SEO75 [talk] 14:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, let me say that that article does need work, and we need to get something done there, I would be happy to work with you on expanding the article, but I still believe that if the place smells like shit, and reliable sources say the place smells like shit, then, it might not be nice, but there it is, a defining characteristic of Clontarf. I have found references that say this smell is related to the sewerage treatment plant, can you find any that say it is related to the drainage pipes on the foreshore? We can explore both possibilities in the article.
Futhermore, the problem has improved, as the article rightly states.
I believe we found a reference on the high unemployment, and it won't be too difficult to find a reference on the commuter lifestyle, due to controversy surrounding the lack of a rail link, and the huge amounts of peak traffic flow through Clontarf, so, as far as I am concerned, this can stay as well. Needs to be referenced as well.
Where to from here? expand, expand, expand.
By the way, saw your posts on the Nova article, fully agreed with you, didn't get involved, but am sorry if things got hot-headed last month, I think we are both here to improve the place. aliasd·U·T 15:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Another note: It really isn't a good idea to remove content without a good reason and discussion, especially if it is the only referenced thing in the article! aliasd·U·T
Okay, to discuss the biggies involved:
Clontarf smell
I am mostly concerned with the use of an editorial piece out of The Redcliffe and Bayside Herald (a side concern) being misconstrued that something that smells like, is like. Redcliffe City Council minutes show (and here) that baking seaweed in the concrete canal beside Bells Beach caused "unpleasant odours". Yes, it smelt like shit, but it wasn't. Ever notice that the smell was most strong around the vicinity of the neighboring caravan park, but not so down near the bridge which is closer to the Water Treatment Plant (apparently its outflow is into Hays Inlet)? The same problem occurred sometimes in the concreted section of Humpybong Creek in Redcliffe, and similarly around at Scotts Point in Woody Point.
(Un)employment level
It puzzles me that Clontarf should receive seemingly special treatment to have a perceived high unemployment level mentioned, especially when articles of more obvious candidates – such as Deception Bay, Morayfield, Ipswich, and Mount Druitt, New South Wales – receive no similar treatment. Have or will you edit other place articles to include their (un)employment levels as well? Such data might be suitable as a line in Template:Infobox Australian Place, similar to population, but it is a huge template already. "A big source of employment", "high unemployment" and "many residents commuting to Brisbane daily for work" do sound contradictory and confusing when immediately together in the one sentence, too.
Traffic
I did have that "Clontarf is a gateway suburb" when talking about Houghton Highway being a major connection to Brisbane City, along with more of an explained mention of the Hornibrook Bridge and {{see also}} links to their articles. There was no lessening of Clontarf's notoriety in this regard.
Hot-headedness
I must say I was taken somewhat aback that my good faith edits were swiftly all reverted and a level 2 vandalism warning left on my talk page. Yes, I'm here to help improve Wikipedia, and a look at my contributions will see the many reverts I've made to vandalisms of a variety of articles. You may have thought I was giving Clontarf a "rose tinted" edit, but I hope you can see my worrying that the article had a negative bias to it that stood out compared to others. To expand, expand, expand is what I believe we both want; I guess we're being bold.
Also...
Just one other thing, six photos of Kitefest in the one article seems to be, err, overwhelming? If the festival is noteworthy enough (it is redlinked), maybe a page could be created about it and they could go in there, leaving a couple of the best ones in Clontarf?
 SEO75 [talk] 21:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in here, but re the points above - firstly, as one of the maintainers of Infobox Australian Place, I would argue (as I think the developers would) that a line stating suburb unemployment would be overkill, especially as it is only measured once every 5 years and only makes sense in the context of regional averages at the time. It does seem to have been borne out in the census figures that it has a higher than regional average level of unemployment (as I went and retrieved before). Many articles are incomplete on Wikipedia... in Perth we have a featured article on a suburb which covers the pros, the cons and other information, and two of the three nearby suburbs (which are socioeconomic low points on the landscapes) are literally stubs, with one simply offering that the suburb contains a Video Ezy. True, the wording can probably be unaddressed, but I've always maintained that fighting over content tends to entrench two inferior versions between which edit-warring may occur, and meaningful development therefore gets stalled. I don't think the current version is overly negative - there's no duty on Wikipedia not to mention negative factual information for the sake of the locals (as gets argued from time to time in various places), and the article does state that there is an emerging tourism industry in the suburb and various high-profile renewal projects are taking place, which I'd say counterbalances some of the parts you seem to find most offensive. Orderinchaos 23:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
My suggestion of including an (un)employment statistic was a bit frivolous in offering it a location to go IAP. (Speaking of which, while you're here, it seems the mostly supported suggestion of slightly reducing its font size has stalled.) My main concern with the article was the factual inaccuracy that there is human effluent on Clontarf's beaches and, coupled with an unexpected mention of "high unemployment", I'm sure would have made any other person looking into the subject and edits worried that they were perhaps not entirely sincere. I am not denying that Clontarf may have higher-than-average unemployment levels – I really didn't know – but it surprised me why it received such analysis (along with other 'shitty' reviews). I was concerned that this in-depth discussion about my edits also lost some other significant work I put into the article, and I notice you have reimplemented some of the work I did (ie education), albeit modified. Is this to progress the matter and include uncontested content, or acting as an independent/mediator? In any case, as long as my good faith work is seen as being that, especially since this has been the only time my contributions to Wikipedia have been reverted and so harshly questioned.  SEO75 [talk] 05:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I would be disingenuous if I was claiming to act as a mediator, my sole interest is in getting development of Australian geography articles towards B-class standard happening consistently, and disputes tend to result in a stalemate between two inferior versions (I'm not using "inferior" as criticism here, I've myself gotten into the situation of doing exactly that in a dispute and so I try to intervene when I see it happening elsewhere). The education section was indeed uncontroversial, and public transport (seeing as it had been mentioned in the article) seemed a suitable addition so people can go and look for themselves. I think there was something of a question at one point about pro-council bias, and I prefer the version presently in place (which we can all work with to improve) for the main reason that that isn't an issue, although I think there's a need to source anything controversial - I'd not imagine that to be too difficult, I'll have a look on Factiva when my assignments let up. Sources once identified might suggest a wording which would resolve the impasse. As for IAP, yeah I know - the manual way is rather hard on the pages it goes into, and I think someone was experimenting with style sheets to see if they could make it work, but I didn't hear anything further. Orderinchaos 11:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
this has been the only time my contributions to Wikipedia have been reverted and so harshly questioned. You and me both. aliasd·U·T 06:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 10 September 2007

I was hoping that we were going to be able to progress, but I am concerned that I am seeing rather possessive traits to Clontarf, Queensland – or is it just against me? What I thought was a simple and totally noncontroversial edit, is the next by me to again get practically reverted. The article isn't that big, so some slight separation of article and image is not that much of an issue (content is king; text should be able to stand on its own without needing images to necessarily immediately accompany it, nor drawn-out captions which would probably be better in the body of the article). Combining the many images into one gallery, with succinct explanatory captions, improved the appearance of the article and its flow; even at a 1280x1024 screen resolution the page had a very poor layout with large blocky amounts of space. Nothing was removed bar one image looking away from Clontarf – I thought one on the bridge would have been enough in an article not about it, and I inserted it into Brighton, where it is looking toward.

I'd like to be able to move forward please with the original aim of Wikipedia being encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Moving on, I have provided references that tie the smell issue to the concrete drain and seaweed; can you provide your claimed references that say the smell is caused by human effluent? In addition, the POV editorial reference in the article has gone cold.

Thanks.  SEO75 [talk] 01:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Does it really look that bad on your screen? I have a pretty wide range of screen resolutions that i view WP from, and it looks ok to me. OK, mabye I should have taken it to talk, but it seemed a bit silly to move all images in the article to gallery. aliasd·U·T 01:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
this and this report blames the sewerage treatment plant for the smell. Furthermore, it is obvious when you look at the statistics that the place has undergone a major cleanup. in 2006 the sewerage treatment plant was responsible for emission into the waterways of 2,700kg of nitrogen and 320kg of Phosphorous. In the year 1999, the plant outputted 220,000 kg of nitrogen and 40,000kg of phosphorus. I really think there was a problem with the sewerage works. aliasd·U·T 01:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I know there has been a kerfuffle with a smell emanating from the treatment plant affecting immediately local residents near the plant, which is up near Elizabeth/Duffield, about 2km NW-NNW from the beaches. I'm not disputing that the quality of the water in Bramble Bay was not good at all; I'd prefer not to eat anything fished out of it. But I had a thought moments ago that is another way to think about it: Bramble Bay is a significant span of saltwater – imagine the very considerable amounts of sewerage that would have to be emptied into it, more so since it is treated, for a strong bad smell to result (not taking into account tidal flows). I'd expect the entire waterway and beaches would be closed-off to any public access at that level. Never happened. Maybe the quality issues of Bramble Bay be added to its article instead?  SEO75 [talk] 02:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Seems like a clear case of WP:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves. Also, looking on Factiva (noting that just because an editorial is no longer available online doesn't mean it can't be referenced - I'm reading it now there) I see:
  • "EPA orders council to take sewerage action" 4 July 2007, Redcliffe-Bayside Herald page 3
  • "Plant is on the nose" 25 April 2007, same page 5 ("Redcliffe's waste water treatment plant is in breach of Environmental Protection Agency licence conditions, according to the EPA's latest report. The report showed the Clontarf-based plant had high levels of hydrogen sulphide, which caused a stench in the area.".... "...past five years with complaints of unbearable sewage odours emanating from the plant")
  • "Mayor vows tighter rules" 25 October 2006 p.3
  • "Kicking up a stink" 20 September 2006 p.16
  • "Stink over inaction" 14 June 2006 p.5
  • "Sweet smell of success" 4 May 2005 p.5
  • "Residents to kick up stink" 12 January 2005 p.13
  • "Plant 'on the nose'" 1 December 2004 p.11
  • "Mystery over stench" 20 August 2003 p.6
  • "Rosy outlook for smells" 17 July 2002 p.5.
Happy to email the text of these to all concerned if necessary. Orderinchaos 03:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
May have to be looked at, as there are three separate issues: one, complaints of smells at the plant itself, 2km away from the coast downwind; two, the smell caused by baking seaweed; and three, the claimed pollution on the beach. I've never said that there are no smells, I've only questioned that the cause of the smell is due to the coast (seashore) "being polluted with human effluent". As for some of those headlines, you could say that I have been "kicking up a stink" by questioning the claim, but that doesn't mean I am causing pollution down at the beach. :)  SEO75 [talk] 03:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
If we do want to get this to GA/FA, galleries are strongly discouraged. If we don't, there's no problem and it comes down to an aesthetic dispute. Personally, I don't like seeing large blocks of text with no images, although it's always possible to overdo inline images which is where the gallery tags originated (they're really a Commons feature which happens to work here as well). Orderinchaos 02:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

As a complete aside - should this entire section of Aliasd's talk be shifted to the Clontarf talk page? It seems like a more logical venue. Orderinchaos 02:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. :)  SEO75 [talk] 02:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section break for ease of editing

I would really like to see images/captions re-introduced back into this article. I don't want to get involved in an edit war, but by removing captions, you are again removing good content. aliasd·U·T 10:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Captions sound like a good idea from the man-in-Helsinki point of view - one would wonder "what is this image? why is it here?" Orderinchaos 10:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* Looks like it has to be entirely 100% your way, aliasd, with no compromise whatsoever. Musn't have enjoyed your time in Clontarf by the looks of it, which is a shame. I don't want an edit war, either, but it looks like I can't contribute anything to your page at all; I'm believing that if I can't even contribute with something simple such as page layout, if I challenge the 'shit on the beach' comment I'll get that entirely reverted as well. Shame.  SEO75 [talk] 13:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not WP:OWN, just try and add to the article without deleting stuff. aliasd·U·T 13:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • In response to the note at AWNB, I would suggest that the image layout is clunky at present nor do the images align well with he text and the captions are too lengthy. I also suggest redlinks for the park and festival would instead be better if the content was added into this article first and then break out later maybe. I don't object to galleries, but otherwise you could have a Commns image page and have a link to that page using {{Commons}}. --Golden Wattle talk 01:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I've butted in also as someone uninvolved in this suburb, but interested in Australian geography articles in general. I have:
  • set the image sizes to default (as set in user preferences),
  • spread the images out a bit better,
  • removed the red links to non-existent articles that had no other incoming links,
  • shortened the captions by moving text into the article where appropriate,
  • removed one image from the gallery so it is just one row.
I dislike galleries in general, so when the text is expanded to cover the subjects of the pictures in the gallery, they should be moved out into the article near that text. --Scott Davis Talk 12:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)