Talk:Brisbane

• Talk:Brisbane/Archive 1

climate chart

The recently added climate chart is difficult to read. The resolution is poor - even when it is viewed as a large image - and is almost impossible to read when it appears as a small image. I think the information contained within it is useful, but perhaps it could be represented as a series of graphs. Perhaps on or two could appear on this page and the rest could be included in a separate article about the climate of Brisbane. The information within the graphs would be better presented if sumarised in words and in the table already on the page. How do people feel about removing the graphic? -- Adz|talk 00:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The chart duplicates some info contained in the table, and therefore is not adding anything new to the article. I think the current climate table is sufficient enough. Looking at other Australian capital city articles, Brisbane's climate table is as comprehensive as Melbourne's and certainly more detailed than the tables in the Sydney and Canberra articles. BrightLights 05:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I support the chart removal - it doesn't add any more information and clutters up the page $eti 04:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Take it out. It doesn't add much, and it screws up page layout. I'll come back in about a week; if no one has objected, I'm taking it out. Woodstein52 00.11, 22 Sept 2006 (UTC)

Statistics in intro

I removed this edit from the intro. (text below). It is unreferenced, but I suspect that it may refer to the CBD or the Brisbane city ABS statistical area. It definitely does not refer to the city as a whole. If the source can be referenced then perhaps the info can be included in the Brisbane central business district article. -- Adz|talk 11:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The size of Brisbane is approximately 3 km². It has 4 parks covering nearly 8% of the total area. There are 10 schools and 3 childcare centres located in Brisbane. The population of Brisbane in 1996 was 3,890 people. By 2001 the population was 5,829 showing a population growth of 50% in the area during that time. The predominant age group in Brisbane is 20 - 29 years.

Households in Brisbane are primarily couples without children and are likely to be repaying over $2000.00 per month on mortgage repayments. In general, people in Brisbane work in a professional occupation. In 1996, 29% of the homes in Brisbane were owner-occupied compared with 29% in 2001.

Currently the median sale price of houses in the area is $506,000.

Besides the debate over its relevance, it made the intro far too long and really, to be honest, doesn't need to stay in the article unless it's updated regularily IMO. --James Pinnell 08:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Structure

This article is beginning to stray quite severely from the recommended structure. I plan to edit the article back to that standard unless the degeneration is otherwise addressed. Thanks, --cj | talk 02:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we just need a proper plan of how the specific sections are addressed and how they need to be changed. Once a section is completed, it shouldn't be drastically edited/removed/changed unless voted by the editing community. Bit by bit the page could be completed properly and may actually (finally) end up being featured :) --James Pinnell 08:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

How about we start by summarising the various transport sections, and retaining the information by creating a new Transport in Brisbane article? The we can do the same with the Media, Communications and internet sections. Does that sound reasonable? Annual events can probably be rolled into 'Life in Brisbane' and renamed culture. That might be a start. -- Adz|talk 10:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

As suggested, I have moved the annual events section into the 'Life in Brisbane' section and renamed the section.

With regard to your suggested new Transport in Brisbane article, there is already a Brisbane Transport article. Figaro 23:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Brisbane Transport deals with the division of the Brisbane City Council that administers public transport in the city. I was thinking of an article more along the lines of Transport in Melbourne, Transport in London or Transportation in New York City. These articles deal with public transport, road infrastructure, (major freeways etc), bridges, airports and seaports, etc. The transport section in the Brisbane article would only have to briefly mention that some of these things exist, and the detail would be contained in the main article. (see the transport sections in the London, Melbourne or New York City articles for example. I'm happy to do most of this edditing if you give me a couple of days to get around to it. -- Adz|talk 01:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, I've started on re-working the Transport section and have transferred all the content to Transport in Brisbane. I think both the T'port section in the main article, as well as the new article could do with a lot of work. I haven't lived in Brisbane for several years so would appreciate it if somebody went over it and checked that it is factually correct. In particular, we need to find references if either article is ever to be featured. -- Adz|talk 14:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel that your edit killed a lot of the major points from my original edit. I'm going to try and keep the structure but fill in some of the relevant information you removed. James Pinnell 07:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Now might be a good time to start to transform it into an Infrastructure section. It's excellent to see the transport section looking more ordered, although it's still far from concise. The summary style is applicable to this article.--cj | talk 17:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I've created the Infrastructure section, and added "Health" and "Utilities". Also - is there any point to listing all of our tv stations and radio stations? Can we include that in a separate section? It's really quite useless and ugly.James Pinnell 08:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Nickname details were discarded

May I suggested that the contributions that were inexplicably gutted out of the article during this edit be restored to the current article.

Interpreting the meaning of symbols can be subjective and controversial at the best of times, but unless you people can provide a good reason for hiding the historical context in which Brisbane's nicknames were invented, I'd say my interpretation should be put back into the article. I don't think anyone would disagree with the accuracy of the interpretation, it's just that one person thought it wasn't important enough despite the unlimited space we have available for obscure details such as this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.63.48.69 (talk • contribs)

As you've observed, the content that was deleted is not only subjective and controversial, but also speculative. It would therefore not pass the criteria for a good article, namely, the requirements that:

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:

(a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material;

(b) the citation of its sources is essential, and the use of inline citations is desirable, although not mandatory;

(c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;

(d) it contains no elements of original research.

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect :

(a) it addresses all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);

(b) it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no non-notable trivia).

On that basis, I think that there is a good reason for leaving it out. If you were able to find sources and provide credible references for the information, then I'd suggest creating a new article about nicknames for Brisbane, and seeing if it survives being put up as an Article for deletion. (I'm not saying that it would be put up for AfD, but it might. I think it would probably survive if it was referenced). -- Adz|talk 14:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Top High Schools

What are the top high schools in Brisbane? ~Sushi 04:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure, but I think I would rather that they not be mentioned in the article. There was briefly a list of schools on the Melbourne page and it degenerated into daily edits between school kids who wanted to promote their school as being better than other schools. It would be better to have a description of the school system along the lines of that in the Melbourne article. -- Adz|talk 13:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Here are some Brisbane High Schools:

• Wavell Heights High School
• Craigslea State High School
• Kelvin Grove State College
• Brisbane State High School
• Mansfield State High School

Unknown User 00:13, 6 October 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.67.116.121 (talk • contribs) .

Brisbane schools are listed in List of schools in Queensland, so there is no need to duplicate a listing of them here. Figaro 21:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be an idea to either list a few notable ones, or at the very least, actually reference the List of schools in Queensland article in the main Brisbane article. I'll wait for 2 days and then edit the article to include more ifnromation about Brisbane High Schools, ie. List a few notable ones and then reference the list. Pursey 16:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I have put a link through to the List of schools in Queensland article in the Education section.

I do not think that schools should be designated as 'notable and the rest'. Such references and information could be open to POV comments and lead to bias, arguments, antagonism and dispute.

Also, who has the right to judge which schools should be considered notable - and which schools should not be. It can only be a personal opinion at best. I am in full agreement with Adz's comments above on this subject. Figaro 06:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Request

Can you please remove that horrible picture of a CityTrain at a station? surely there are better ones than that —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.239.83.158 (talk • contribs) .

The image has now been removed, as you requested. Figaro 01:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Why are there such unflattering pictures on our page? There are great Wiki pics like StoryBridgeByNight800.jpg and Queens-Plaza-sculptures.jpg which do not feature. The City Cat image is also outdated and there is not a picture of River Fire which is discussed. Compared to Melbourne's page ours is extremely dissappointing, I have tried to edit it but it just goes back to its boring original state. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.226.40.92

I completely agree with what you said above! The Brisbane page is very disappointing and unfair compared with other cities! If the "Brisbane project" people continue to use ugly and outdated pictures and delete good ones that are already on the Wikipedia site I will contact Wikipedia and tell them of this situation. Stop deleting the good pictures and visit the Melbourne or Sydney page to compare! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soulvisionq1

Reply to Soulvisionq1

It's not very kind to comment on other users' pictures as "ugly and outdated", especially when you have not yet contributed any copyright-free photos yourself to Wikipedia. At least the users whose photos you are denigrating have tried to help by contributing their own photos to Wikipedia, for the benefit of other people (including yourself). And, why do you comment that the photos are "outdated"? If you feel so strongly about the matter, then why don't you use your own camera and take some photos yourself. Figaro 13:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to 60.226.40.92

With respect to the phot of the Story Bridge at night, there is already a photo of the Story Bridge on the page (the photo of the Story Bridge at night is also featured on the Story Bridge page). And, with respect the the Queens Plaza sculptures, the photo is already featured on the Queens Plaza page. Finally, with regard to Riverfire, maybe nobody is able to contribute a photo to Wikipedia. If you would like to contribute to the page, then you might like to register as a user so that you can contribute your own photos (taken with your own camera) to articles. Figaro 13:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Figaro

I did! I took my own like everyone i know who has tried to update it! but guess what Figaro, you deleted them! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.236.164.101

A user who is not registered cannot upload his own photos — or are you a registered user who is not 'logged on'? Perhaps you would be good enough to identify who your are — and also to mention exactly which photos you took and which you claim I deleted. Figaro 13:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I notice that 220.236.164.101 has not been back to answer my queries. I should mention here that I have never deleted any photos from Wikipedia, so perhaps this is the reason why 220.236.164.101 did not answer any of my questions to him/her. Figaro 21:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Well it was someone else then... that "cow_something" user. Anyway... the embarrassment continues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulvisionq1 (talk • contribs)

Well you are welcome to take your own photos and upload them where necessary (and signed-in into Wikipedia) instead of sitting and whinging about it. Also in future, can you sign off after making a comment by using the four tides like this : ~~~~ at the end of your messages, as it can be hard to track down whos making the unsigned comment. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 15:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Soulvisionq1

As I have already commented, I did not delete your images – a quick check of your logs will show what happened to your images, who deleted them, and why the deletions occurred (the records are there to check, if you click onto the names of your deleted images and follow the directions with the 'deletion log' for each of them). I am still waiting for you to show the good manners to apologise to me for your unfair and unjust accusation against me regarding this. Figaro 23:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Update

• I've started the clean up. It still needs work, the article is heavy in all the wrong places. --Peta 09:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• I've been working on the Brisbane gallery [1] at Wikimedia Commons and am also in the process of re-categorising [2] some of the Brisbane images there, trying to create an appropriate hierarchy of daughter categories. This is in response to earlier requests (and an obvious need) to select the 'best' series of images to go on the Wikipedia pages. Any help would be much appreciated - particularly in moving images across from Wikipedia to the Commons area. Thank! BrisbanePom 11:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Population

Brisbane's population does not some up to 1.9 million people. Exclude City of Caboolture, Redcliffe City, Logan City and Ipswich City, that would leave the population 1.6-1.7million. Maybe the artical should list its Urban population as 1.9 million. Unknown User 04:16, 19 October 2006

Considering the results from the last census haven't been tallied, the population mark is a growth estimate by the ABS. The last census before the most recent one this year, was in 2001. In the last 5 years, Brisbane has featured phenomenal growth, so it will be interesting to see what comes out of the 06' effort when the stats come available in July next year. 59.167.108.234 17:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Brisbane one of most multicultural cities ?

The article states that Brisbane is one of the most multicultural cities in Australia. This is a factoid. The statistics just don't add up to this. Look at the stats: Comparative percentages of those born overseas in Australian major cities (as at 2001):

• Melbourne: 43.5%
• Perth: 31.6%
• Sydney: 31.2%
• Adelaide: 24.6%
• Darwin: 22.0%
• Canberra: 22.0%
• Brisbane: 21.0%
• Hobart: 14.0%

The ABS shows that Brisbane has a relatively low overseas migration rate compared to Sydney and Melbourne, and while Melbourne and Sydney's is growing, Brisbanes has either stayed the same or actually decreased. The reason for this is most likely that migrants are attracted to cities that offer high employment in areas of unskilled labour, in manufacturing and industry, whereas the majority of Brisbane's growth is actually in white collar industries. Even with interstate migration over the last few years, Brisbane still has the second lowest multicultural rate of the capital cities, and there are several provincial cities like Geelong and Newcastle that have higher multicultural proportions. For example, Dandenong, Victoria has a rate of 54% overseas born. --Biatch 01:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

While the statement in the article certainly needs to be sourced, I'm not sure your statistics disprove it. I don't think it is correct to assume that multiculturalism is determined by proportion of overseas-born population; there are cultural differences amongst native Australians, no?--cj | talk 08:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you disagree with the definition of Multiculturalism on Wikipedia and believe it needs changing. I quote: "Multiculturalism is almost always applied to distinct cultures of immigrant groups in developed countries" and "not to the presence of indigenous peoples". Australian born people are much more likely to have embraced Australian culture and less likely to know the customs of or be able to speak the language of their descendants.--Biatch 02:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The statistics quoted do not indicate the % of 'immigrant groups' (as quoted from the multiculturalism article), they indicate the % of population born overseas. Although this may seem to be the same thing, it is not. It does not take into account 'immigrant groups' that have been established here for more than one generation, and hence are not born overseas. Your statistics just show the recent immigration, not overall 'immigrant group' size. but I do think the comment should be reworded, brisbane is a multicultural city, but comparison to other cities is not required. Rimmeraj 02:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You are talking about the visible minority, which is not a true indication or measure of a multicultural community. Second generation immigrants rarely retain their culture of their descendants. Until recently, Brisbane's population was dominated by the White Australia Policy, hence most immigrants are from Europe and English speaking backgrounds and have been quick adopters of Australian culture. Cities like Melbourne, however, have had multicultural populations for example from China since the Gold Rush 150 years ago which has influenced the diversity much more since. Ultimately everyone in Australia is an immigrant at some point - even indigenous Australians. Most cities in the developed world are to a certain extent. This is not, however, notable. To say so would not be doing justice to truly multicultural cities like Toronto, Melbourne, New York, London and Perth.--Biatch 05:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Biatch, that part of the articel should be removed. Brisbane population is 85% Anglo. Even Perth has a highter non-Anglo population and Perth is australia's 4th biggest city. I'm glad I now live in melbourne now, honestly brisbane is abit to "Red neck" for my taste. The Italian Australian population seems to be dying in Brisbane, which is sad cus the only migrants that have arrived in Brisbane over the past few years are Africans (not that there's anything wrong with that, But it wasnt until then brisbane ppl actully knew what black was, if ur an ethnic who's live/lived in Brisbane will know what i mean), But multiculturalism in brisbane is not very strong compered to Sydney, Melbourne and just about every other captital city in Australia, Brisbane despratly needs a new wave of migrants. Unknown User 20:32, 19 October 2006

So you have to have lots of immigrants to be multicultural? Australian-born means that you enjoy barbequed steak, rugby league, and Fosters, without exception? I would disagree with that assessment. Lankiveil 01:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC).

Second fastest growing city in the developed world ???

This claim is made in the opening paragraph of the article. Where does this claim hail from ? What periods are we talking about ?? I looked around and couldn't find anything on this. The claim is spurious at best. I did find this article [3] which seems to indicate Las Vegas, Austin and Atlanta in the United States are in the world top 100, but no mention of Brisbane. I could find no mention in reputable articles here [4] or here [5]. According to the Developed country article (redirected from Developed World), Dubai is the fastest growing city on Earth, Brisbane surely does not hold a candle to the growth of Dubai. Is this another factoid ?? If a source can't be found, it should be deleted. --Biatch 03:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Introduction needs work

I just read the introduction for this article, and found it to be confusing and to contain information that was not relevant for an introduction. I suggest the following: - remove text about the 'world fair' and 'commonwealth games', they are events that occured but are not important for an introduction. - the wording 'of the Australian State of Queensland' in the first sentence is badly worded and does not conform to the other city pages (example Sydney). I would reword it as 'of Queensland'. If the reader wants to know more about Qeensland they can use the link to determine that it is an australian state. - the introduction seems to be too history focused. It does tell you where Brisbane is, how populated, and then the rest is about the history. I would suggest that the world war II text is not essential and that we need a focus on what brisbane is today. A sentence about climate, sporting (and other recreation), government (council or state government), major landmarks would all be valid pieces of information. - I am not suggesting we make the introduction a huge section, just that the current information does not provide a good introduction to Brisbane.

I would like to perform some of the changes, but think I need agreement before I do any changes. Rimmeraj 23:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

See WP:LEAD for guidelines and Canberra for a featured article example. Good city introductions are generally contain name, population, location, brief historical overview, and relative importance.--cj | talk 02:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you specify which parts of my suggestion you do not think are worthwhile? based on your link to WP:LEAD and the canberra example I still feel changes are required.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rimmeraj (talk • contribs) 11:42, 25 October 2006.

Most of your last suggestion would be trivial.--cj | talk 02:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Cochi is an example of what I was aiming for. And if my suggestions are trivial, then please suggest some that are not. Anyway, no on else seems to care either way so I will leave it unchanged. Rimmeraj 00:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Culture

"Brisbane has a thriving live music scene, as well as museums and theatres, performing arts and creative arts. It is the birthplace of internationally acclaimed singers, music bands, authors, artists and sculptors"

Can we have some examples? And out of interest are any of them still there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.86.71.20 (talk • contribs) .

It is a bit on the vague side. I don't personally doubt it with musicians, but I think examples need to be given. Orderinchaos78 ^(t|c) 19:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

And, which examples do you feel should be given on the main Brisbane page — which is already overly long (and which people are trying to reduce the volume of)?

There are special pages which have been created specifically for this purpose (one page being for popular entertainment such as pop, rock, punk and night clubs etc. — and another page for classical culture, such as opera, ballet, sculpture, actors, authors, artists and theatre venues etc.). While people seem to be very eager to list rock and punk music bands and artists on the main page, they are virtually ignoring classical culture. If there is to be mention on the main Brisbane page, again, of various groups and artists etc., then this will make the main Brisbane page more cumbersome, and a bias will once again be heavily loaded in favour of popular entertainment. Also, which examples out of the many would you choose for special favour and consideration by being specially chosen to be given a more prominent position by being mentioned on the main page? There should be no discrimation in mentioning bands and artists etc. (in either popular or classical culture), but this would be the case if certain bands and artists were singled out for this special privelege. Figaro 02:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The new Queensland Cultural Centre just opened, with the Queensland Gallery of Modern Art does anybody have some decent images? It is certainly a topic that needs to be emphasised on both the Brisbane and Brisbane's Classical Culture page.

A-class Rating ?????

How did this happen ? There are barely any references in this article. Not much at all has changed since I last read it with a B rating. --Biatch 04:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it back to B Class, seems someone snucked in a A somewhere. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 14:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Flag of Brisbane

Wondering whether there are any who might have some information relating to the Flag of Brisbane. If we can get an article together or perhaps incorporate it in with the Brisbane article that'd be great. Yarub 00:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)