Talk:Barrack Square

Australia: Western Australia / Perth Low‑importance

	Australia portal Barrack Square 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.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Perth (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Western Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

original location was further north[edit]

The article says:

... the land north of the location was used as a landing area for goods and people (as the current location lies further south)...

yet when I look at the map (Google maps or street directory), north of Barrack Square is inland. Perhaps the original location was west, or at best west-north-west. Presumably the current Barrack Square is built on reclaimed land - Perth Water#History says as much, and File:Perth Water 1838.jpg agrees. The article should probably mention this explicitly. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from citing a deadlink, its crummy grammar anyway. How can a location be south of the same location? The writer might have been referring to the series of wharves and jetties in front of the esplanade including near the base of Mount Street and the then Bazaar Terrace. The base of Barrack Street has almost always been a significant landing site though — Henry Laroche Cole's jetty and warehouses down there are notable. I would just remove the phrase inside the parentheses. Moondyne (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably what the parenthetical phrase is saying (somewhat redundantly, given the first half of the sentence) is "the current location lies further south than the land [north of the current location] used in the early development of Perth". Deleting the parenthetical phrase solves part of the "grammar" problem (and I've done that), but doesn't resolve the apparent anomaly that "north of the [current] location" is inland, so difficult to use as a landing area. (I doubt they had helicopters back then.) We need to establish the facts first, then we can sort out the right words to use.

Perhaps the originator of the current wording is watching and will offer some insight (or better still, a ref). Mitch Ames (talk) 11:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

facts man, nothing but the facts man - moondyne has the gist - the original water line was well north of the current square sats 11:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.thebelltower.com.au/downloads/History_and_Development_of_the_Swan_River.pdf

http://www.historycouncilwa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Foreshore-treasure-Port-of-Perth1.pdf

http://heritageperth.com.au/properties/barrack-square/

I'll use these in the next few days or so... Mitch Ames (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if these old maps add much more than the ones in the history council link given above, but the 'Perth Townsite 1838' map overlay in the 'Historic Maps' section seems to show that the original river edge was about where The Esplanade, Terrace Rd is. This 1906 overview of the redevelopment is a bit hard to follow, but might be of use to those more aware of what was done. There are some construction photos and some explanation of the reclaiming of land (including a comment about extending the tram lines 350 ft to the square) here. Damn the lack of aerial photography in the 1890s! The-Pope (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That 1906 article is a great find and fills in some gaps. I've tidied up the text layer there which hopefully helps. Moondyne (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"During the early development of Perth", Barrack Square didn't even exist, so I think the simplest solution is to just delete the sentence. If we can extract more useful information out of the refs about the changing shoreline, it should probably go to Perth Water instead. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added the above refs to Barrack Square#Further reading. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barrack Square. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120413232818/http://www.mra.wa.gov.au/News/13453/Barrack-Square-transformation-gets-green-light to http://www.mra.wa.gov.au/News/13453/Barrack-Square-transformation-gets-green-light

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]