Talk:Canberra/Archive 3

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.

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

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)

"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)

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)

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

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)

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)

"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)

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)

Diagram?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)