Talk:Canberra

is this really notable?

I personally think a large section should be dedicated to the problem of the growing public servce in canberra. There should also be a section for self help of people stuck in the public service with a hot line and help for finding alternative employment,and directions to mental health facilitys located around canberra so they can possibly attempt to fix their biggest flaws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.50.48.2 (talk) 00:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC) 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)

i agree it would be very vauble if this was adddded in :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.107.115 (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

i agree if its anything Canberra would have a conservative reputation.

Canberra is generally further left leaning than much of the country (going on election results), but not to an extent to warrant a quoe like that in the introduction. Agreed. Steewi (talk) 03:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

Removed statement

I have removed the statment "Due to the fact that there is almost no orthogonal design in the city, Canberrans are wont to point in a direction when asked where something is located. Instructions to follow certain streets are exceptionally rare." This statement belongs on uncyclopedia due to its obsurdness and until you have evidence to back up this totally ridiculous statement dont pit it back there, if anyone disagrees with my decision to remove it, please give me your reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamum31 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess this article was promoted to FA status a long time ago - that kind of stuff shouldn't slip though.... Wongm (talk) 11:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Climate graph

needs clearer time axis. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC).

Please note that the coordinates in this article need fixing as:

• The coordinates for Canberra, Australia are -35.17S, 149.08E

(Coordinates in article are more accurate than these. BrainMarble (talk) 01:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

Invite to Canberra Meetup #2

--.../Nemo (talk • Contributions) 13:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Griffin and Canberra design

'Canberra is a planned city that was originally designed by Walter Burley Griffin, a major 20th century American architect.[44]' This statement is misleading as it assumes the city was designed by Griffin, while in fact the only thing left from original design by Griffin is the parliamentary triangle and lake (also heavily modified). Griffin was fired by Australian politicians from his job. Most of Canberra is designed by the politicians!!! There are no boulevards with shops alongside as envisioned by Griffin. It is basically an English (Australia is ruled by English till today) town, with English cottages and English style landscapes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.34.140.221 (talk) 02:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Not entirely true, but I get your point. Many of the original suburbs were built exactly as Griffin designed them, but his vision for the City was quickly diluted. It is true that he won the international design competition and that his design was the starting-point for Canberra. MartinL-585 (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

1.The statement 'Canberra is a planned city that was originally designed by Walter Burley Griffin' is entirely correct. Your point refers to post-original design. 2.The bulk of the subsequent design was done by Bureaucrats (NCDC) not Politicians.Wildplum69 (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to clarify it as it wasn't just NCDC (which basically serves the politisians anyway) but in a big way Prime Minister Robert Menzies who was an anglophile and monarchist and didn't like Griffin's 'continental' design. He insisted on changing Canberra's design to 'bush' capital (basically similar to English picturesque but with Australian element). It was Robert Menzies who pressend for English town planning model of Canberra rather than European/American as W. Griffin designed. The architect W. Holford (also an Englishman) was put in charge and amended Griffin's plans. The City Beautiful model was abondoned and this is why today Canberra looks more like an English village. Please do not blame NCDC - they followed the politicians - NCDC had to do that, NCDC couldn't bite the hand that was it was fed by. Please check the sources like: K. Fischer 'Canberra: Myths and Models: Forces at work in the formation of the Australian Capital' Hamburg, Institute of Asian Affairs, 1984. Local Australian sources aren't objective and usually take pro-government form and look more or less like tourism brochure full of praise for Griffin and his design and giving him all the credits (though we know very well that all the satelite town centres like Woden, Belconnen etc were never envisaged by Griffin). Also, while originally designed by W. Griffin may be true - we have to consider that when Griffin's contract wasn't extended (he was fired) there wasn't much finished on the ground - only few roads. We should strive to be objective in Wikipedia and not just repeat without questioning official line of the Australian government about Griffin and Canberra. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homo hi (talk • contribs) 13:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

We can assume that less than 5% of present Canberra was planned by Griffin. And as someone mentioned before: it was heavilly amended by the politicians anyway. Maybe a bit of history should be added explaining what actually happened to Griffin's work, his vision and design ie. he always believed the Parliament House should be placed at the lowest point of the city to create a democratic city where average citizen lived above the government. And that was the case with the Old Parliament House. Yet, in 1988 new Parliament House was built like a king's castle on the hill ignoring the Griffin's vision of people's city. Undeniably, there is a strong movement (supported by the government) that gives a credit to Griffin as the main and only designer of Canberra - and this is also heavilly used by the tourism industry etc. But anyone who researched a bit deeper the history of Canberra and Griffin's work gets quite a different picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.129.21.2 (talk) 06:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Peter Proudffot wrote: 'While paying false homage to Walter and Marion Griffin and their visionary plan, politicians and public figures alike have discarded the most significant components of that plan and disregarded the aesthetic principles critical to its implementation. The picturesque capital of Australia is largely the manifestation of conservative idealism generated from an English background. The 'public' city, a civic and democratic symbol, is now only the dream of a few ideologues. Canberra has become the expression of private individuals, who have vacillated between the frantic desire to find something comprehensible to belong to, and an equally consuming passion to act on their own.' http://www.scribd.com/doc/186934/Proudfoot-The-Secret-Plan-of-Canberra-Occult-Masonic-Architecture-of-Australias-Capital-1994 Maybe we shoudl include this note and the weblink. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homo hi (talk • contribs) 03:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

True Translation of the Aboriginal Word for Canberra

There is a commonly promoted and accepted myth concerning the name of Australia's national capital, Canberra.

The word is supposedly derived from the Ngunnawal (aboriginal language) word "kambera" or "kambarra" and is often quite incorrectly said to mean "meeting place". The reality is that aboriginal people would have met at very many places for various purposes, and their languages tend to refer to those localities in terms of easily identifiable landmarks, rather than the activities conducted there. Consequently there isn't usually a single word which substitutes for such an abstract concept of a universal "meeting place". Rather, in the case of Ngunnawal language, the word is more correctly translated as "women's breasts", and is usually regarded as a reference to cleavage between the twin busty shaped hills of Mt Ainslie and Black Mountain which would have been a convenient way for the wandering hunter-gatherers to identify (or sing) the course of the Molonglo River from afar.

Yes, it was certainly a place where the aboriginals would have met. It is quite well known that tribal clans met in this vicinity on a seasonal basis to feast on the richly nutritious bogong moth, and to sing and dance and celebrate life. When the moth season finished they would move on to the next place of food gathering where they would also sing and dance and celebrate life. The purpose of the place isn't the same thing as a correct translation of their name for it though, and devoid of European prudery, the local aboriginal peoples would have had no qualms whatever in refering to good camping places on the river by simple references to familiar objects such as the perky breasts of a young woman.

For naked peoples, there is nothing particularly remarkable about any part of the human body, nor in the use of such anatomical terms as comparison to characteristics in the landscape. This practice occurs frequently throughout the Australian continent and islands, and most tribes have localities they refer to by their own words for buttocks, breasts and genitalia, as well as most other body parts.

The long running conspiracy to conceal or sanitise the true meaning of the word after which Australia's capital is named might conceivably have come about for any number of reasons, however, it is high time the record is set straight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter b (talk • contribs) 05:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Old meaning stays since you not sourced it and is just your original research. A few websites prove the old meaning is correct[1][2][3]. Bidgee (talk) 06:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

These websites prove nothing - they just repeat it as if it is fact. MartinL-585 (talk) 03:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The "breasts" meaning was seriously supported by an academic at ANU more than a decade ago. I remember it got a fair bit of publicity at the time (I have been at ANU since 1983). It is easy to find brief mentions in newspaper articles, but I didn't find a citable source that names a particular expert as a supporter. One article mentions the Canberra Historical Society, maybe someone can contact them. McKay (talk) 09:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's something (Canberra Times, 8 December 2005, p12), quoting "local history researcher Christine Fernon":

Most people, however, believed the name was of Aboriginal origin and was used long before the appearance of white settlers. "The Polish naturalist John Lhotsky, who traversed the Monaro Plains in 1834, said the local people called the area Kembery. Joshua Moore had spelt the name 'Canburry' in 1831. In 1838 Aubrey Mowle wrote that 'the native name of Canberry was Caanberra, the first syllable is long - phonetically Karnberra'. Surveyor- general Major Thomas Mitchell used 'Canberry' on his map of 1834, and 'Canberra' was used in the diocesan register for 1857 and that spelling has been used since." Local Aboriginals, asked in 1913, didn't know its origin. "One suggested the original name was 'Go-Yang-berra' and was the sacred ground for holding the Boya ceremony, an initiation ceremony for boys." Another said it meant 'woman's breasts' - Black Mountain and Mt Ainslie like the breasts of a recumbent woman.

I think this is enough to justify a brief mention in the article. McKay (talk) 09:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I thought the two mountains in question are Mt Ainslie and Mt Majura - just look from the O'Connor Ridge across the Canberra valley to see why. --Chaleyer61 (talk) 09:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is also incorrect to state in the article that the word Canberra "is derived from" as a fact without citing sources. I have never believed that Canberra/Canberry/Kamberry meant "meeting place" - it's just too convenient. And in particular the name "Canberry" is too similar to "Canterbury" to even believe that it had an indigenous origin. It would be better to say some believe this and others believe that. MartinL-585 (talk) 03:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I notice the wrong pronunciation has crept back again, if I'm interpreting the SquiggleText correctly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.113.232.179 (talk) 02:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Canberra, also spelt Kamberra, Kambra, Ngambri, Kamberri, is the name of the local aboriginal tribe, the Kamberri. Who spoke Walgalu. This same people are also known today as Ngunnawal due to a historical mistake. The Ngunawal language was spoken by Walaballooa who lived at Yass and Borrowa. The Canberra Plains were a coroborree ground of the Kamberri. For references see Ann Jackson-Nakano's genealogical studies that were commissioned by the ACT government and or go to www.ngambri.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.64.239 (talk) 11:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Urbanized Area

How much of ACT/Canberra is urbanized? It's clear that the urban area takes up very little land in the territory and I'm sure this fact is worth noting somewhere in the beginning of the article. --Criticalthinker (talk) 07:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I had to do some research on this a few months ago, and now I wish I had retained my source! The Namadgi National Park's area covers about two thirds of the ACT, and about half of the remaining area is urban... but that needs a reference and I don't have time to find one! Trevar (talk) 01:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

OK, the first of this is stuff that was censored by someone who can't handle criticism of Canberra. I'm putting it back. -

Who removed my edits? I made a legitimate point, and someone has censored me.

Canberra is criticised all the time, for being dull, lifeless, boring, unliveable. It's in the papers and well documented. This article fails to reflect that at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.230.8 (talk) 00:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The NPOV tag says "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." which is exactly right. I dispute the neutrality of this page because it doesn't talk at all about popular opinion about Canberra, or criticisms of the city. It's not a neutral page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.230.8 (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you blind? "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." 150.203.230.8 (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page.

This is what I was going to put on the Canberra page, but now I've been censored.

"you're the only one to have the issue which is clearly your POV" Rubbish. See these articles? Are they my opinions? No, they're the opinions of Australia. [4] [5] [6] [7]

Even the Chief Minister of Canberra admits people think Canberra is boring http://www.abc.net.au/news/items/200507/1425180.htm?act 150.203.230.8 (talk) 03:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Further censorship:

It appears even my critical comments about the article Canberra have disappeared down the memory hole. Not only are you not allowed express that half of Australia has the "wrong" opinion about Canberra, any trace of having expressed that opinion has disappeared. And they have the nerve to say that I'm the one acting inappropriately.150.203.230.8 (talk) 03:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

New references, not included above.

Bill Bryson, A Sunburned Country - "after a minute's thought, wrote, "Canberra awfully boring place. Beer cold, though" [8]

Margo Dal, Rough Guide to Australia - It hasn't succeeded yet: most Australians still regard Canberra as "pollie city" — a frosty, boring place where politicians and public servants live it up [9]

Howard Simpson - When we'd arrived in Australia's capital, I'd discounted the complaints from diplomatic colleagues that Canberra was boring. Now, after two years, I was moving to their way of thinking. [10]

Frommer's Australia 2006 - Actually, the city isn't quite as boring as the rest of Australia thinks, nor as lively as the citizens of Canberra would have you believe. [11]

Careers @gov.au - It is often said that public service jobs would be great if they weren't in Canberra, which a lot of people think is a boring, lifeless city with nothing to do. [12]

Ben Wright, Michael Patrick Shiels, Good Bounces and Bad Lies - Canberra, a nice enough city, is a boring place when compared to Sydney, Perth, and even Adelaide. [13]

Andrew J. Farrara, Around the World in 220 Days: The Odyssey of an American Traveler Abroad - Canberra has been criticized as being artificial, sterile and utterly boring. Many people work here during the week and get away for the weekend [14]

Stephen Page, Colin Michael Hall, Managing urban tourism The Territory government also have to overcome the various negative images of Canberra that have built up in Australia as being 'full of public servants and politicians, boring, [closed] on Sundays, hard to get around with too many roundabouts, [and] cold... [15]

The Round table, Volumes 67-68 - Canberra was to be made, quite deliberately, a rather boring place [16]

The bulletin, Issues 6585-6593 "Canberra at night looks more funereal than the memorial itself." So much of Canberra, he writes, is "lifeless chunks of stone in the middle of nothing"

OK, I think I've proved my point. Censor that! with all of this, we can debate whether it is a boring city or not. That's a matter of personal opinion. But what cannot be denied is that it has a reputation among many Australians as boring, many visitors find it boring, and at least some people who live there find it boring.

Also, someone who removed my NPOV tag said that I'm the only one who has this issue with the page. If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Canberra/Archive_4#A_balanced_view you'll find someone saying that this article reads like a PR brochure, with no mention of any problems this city might have. If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Canberra/Archive_4#Missed_the_vibe you'll see other people have agreed with me. They even said that it should be fairly easy to establish from newspapers and books. Which it is - there are just people on this page who don't want anything bad written about the city they love, and are willing to censor it out. 150.203.230.8 (talk) 08:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Those criticisms are POV's and you've also misquoted some of those books. I find it rather strange that you have ago at the NPOV of this article when Sydney (Though doesn't get the boring and dull criticism, it does have criticisms) and Melbourne (Called dull and gloomy) have the same if not more positive content but why aren't they added? because it's POV's. You have also misquoted those archived comments which are from 2006/2007, last time I looked it's almost 2010. Bidgee (talk) 09:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course they are opinions! That is the point! I am just trying to get people to acknowledge that Canberra has a reputation that it is boring. Wikipedia doesn't have to say that they are right or wrong, just that some people think that. 150.203.230.8 (talk) 09:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

And they're from 2006 and 2007? Well, at least you agree that I'm not the only one to look at the page and think it looks like a PR brochure. 150.203.230.8 (talk) 09:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Point of views (IE: Opinions) do not belong in the article and that is the reason why they've not been added, Nothing states that Canberra the a fun, exciting and energetic city nor should it state Canberra is a dull, cold and boring city. 2006 and 2007 comments are hardly valid as the article was in a different state some 2 to 3 years ago. Bidgee (talk) 09:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Utter rubbish, Bidgee. Look at any city article you can think of. Bangkok, Wellington, Melbourne. You'll find criticism of their urban design. Because they're not perfect. A very useful comparison is with Brasilia. There is criticism of the city there, quite extensive, including quotes from people who thought the city had faults, for the same reasons that people criticise Canberra. Should I go over to that article and remove the criticism?

And then you you get this - "Nevertheless, Canberra stands as an exemplary city design and is located halfway between the ski slopes and the beach. It enjoys a natural cooling from geophysical factors." Well, as should be quite obvious, not everyone agrees that it is "exemplary". If you're going to have this, then you should include at least a line that expresses that its design has been criticised.

Either you don't want these well documented facts (that people have criticised the city IS a fact) here here, or you've decided that the article, like Canberra, is just perfect. 150.203.230.8 (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I laugh at your suggestion that Melbourne is known as dull and gloomy. It has a reputation for bad weather ("four seasons in one day"), but it does not have a reputation for being dull, but instead having a vibrant nightlife and cafe culture. It has serious issues with sprawl affecting the liveability of the city, and the article mentions that. 150.203.230.8 (talk) 10:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It's clear you have a point of view on Canberra being dull and boring and yet you go and slap a NPOV on the article? Canberra being dull and boring has nothing to do with its design or architecture. However I do feel that the beaches shouldn't be in the article but since Canberra is located on the Great Dividing Range and the nearest capital to the Snowies that the distances from the nearest ski fields could be added.

Melbourne's vibrant nightlife is irrelevance and would belong on travel wiki then here on Wikipedia. and never heard of Melbourne being call dull and gloomy[17] or called Melboring[18]? I'm not saying that it should be added to the Melbourne article but rather trying to display why POV's do not belong in the article or any other article on Wikipedia. Bidgee (talk) 10:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

That paper doesn't say what you think it does. It talks about rock _history_, about the 70s and 80s, when Melbourne was as dull as dishwater. I agree with you. And if the Melbourne article was written 20 years ago you might have a point. The great majority of references I gave are from the last five years.

Same with "Melboring". You won't find any recent books calling it that [19] [20] Hell, you'll hardly find any at all. Just compare that with Canberra. http://books.google.com.au/books?q=Canberra+boring&btnG=Search+Books

It looks like you've decided what can and can't be written here, you've made up your mind I'm wrong, and since you're going to delete whatever I write, I'm off. Have writing an article about an imaginary city that is never criticised! 150.203.230.8 (talk) 10:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, as a proud Canberra resident with an interest in this article, I'm going to go out on a limb and support the anon IP on this issue to an extent. I do feel the article has a slightly laudatory tone. I'm uncomfortable with the tone of this for example: "Canberra has numerous sporting ovals, golf courses, skate parks, tennis courts and swimming pools that are open to the public. A Canberra-wide series of bicycle paths are available to cyclists for recreational and sporting purposes. Canberra Nature Parks have a large range of walking paths, horse and mountain bike trails. Water sports like sailing, rowing and water skiing are popular activities on Canberra's lakes." The more so when checking the only reference that supports these sentences, which is NCA tourism promotion, and appears lake-related only. I also think some of the enduring criticism of Canberra - from Bill Bryson's humorous remarks to the implication of the ACT's campaign to re-make its image in order to attract skilled employees - is notable within the meaning of that term at Wikipedia. However, can I also say to anon IP: that a POV tag on the whole article wasn't the right way to go about this for a WP Feature Article. Discussion on the talk page amongst editors is best, and judicious edits - for example in the culture section - substantiated with reliable source references - would be the way to go. I think you've done a lot of the hard work to put this stuff together, and it may be that a sentence or two in the culture section may be effective. I'll be interested to hear other views. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't support any mention of Canberra being boring for the following reasons: (a) its a POV (b) in my POV (as someone who has lived in London, Paris, New York, Singapore, KL, Port Moresby, Sydney, Perth and Canberra) it is not boring and (c) the majority of 'sources' for those criticisms come from non-Canberra residents. Finally, and most importantly (D) - a POV judgement about the vibrancy of a city is not the role and scope of Wikipedia, that is a travel wiki issue as pointed out previously. So, I disagree with the anon IP editor and think the article is fine and balanced the way it is. 121.79.5.20 (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Also, several of the sources cited by the anon IP editor actually talk about the falsity of the reputation after they mention "boring" and "canberra" together. This is very amateur mistake to make by what is obviously a first-time wiki editor. Just searching for the two terms and finding them doesn't mean that article or book supports that view. A a single example: in the "Rough guide to Australia" By Margo Daly after the two search terms are mentioned, a couple of pages later is this: "Canberra's night life is also a great deal better than you might expect considering its reputation". This just reinforces the point i made above: the 'reputation' of Canberra is nothing more than POV held (mostly) by people who haven't lived there or have never visited. Here is another POV for you: Sydney is a hole of a city that should be bull-dozed and rebuilt from scratch and Melbourne is a waste of good farmland. Can we put those in the respective Sydney and Melbourne articles? I mean we have to BALANCE them, right? 121.79.5.20 (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"No one has supported your view for this tag"

YES, THEY HAVE. Do I need to quote myself? Here is what I just wrote. 150.203.230.8 (talk) 09:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

"Also, someone who removed my NPOV tag said that I'm the only one who has this issue with the page. If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Canberra/Archive_4#A_balanced_view you'll find someone saying that this article reads like a PR brochure, with no mention of any problems this city might have. If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Canberra/Archive_4#Missed_the_vibe you'll see other people have agreed with me. They even said that it should be fairly easy to establish from newspapers and books."

You are willingly ignoring that there are people who have said that the article is not neutral, because it does not reflect that there are criticisms of Canberra. 150.203.230.8 (talk) 09:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

How about this "Some clueless fools, probably the same loons who pronounce it "Can-bear-ah", mindlessly parrot canards whenever given the chance"> Sums it up nicely, and is in no way non-NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.45.98.97 (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Typo in caption

The Canberra page is semi-protected and I don't have sufficient privileges to edit it. I noticed a typo in the caption to the top image: 'parlimentary' should be 'Parliamentary'. If pages are to be semi-protected they should at least have a level of editorial overview that would prevent gross errors like this, ones that a casual reader like me could correct easily without the semi-protection.

Ditto, trying correct Molongo -> Molonglo, Australian Capital Territory dab bypass.

Page Protection

This article has been semiprotected since 8 September 2009.[21]98.203.142.17 (talk) 09:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Article is false

This article continues to keep out any information that might lead people to think that Canberra is anything other than paradise. Other articles talk about problems with pollution, congestion, crime, and other negative things. Yet there is no mention of the widespread criticism of the town planning of Canberra that deliberately keeps evidence of human activity to a minimum - the place is known around the world as a town planning disaster, and an example of what not to do. Yet there is no mention of this, and deliberate attempts by the owners of this article to keep it out. The article is currently locked to prevent any balanced addition of content. 150.203.230.8 (talk) 07:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

For starters, if you want to keep going down this path, how about you register as a user. You mention "widespread criticism" and "Canberra is criticised all the time" so prove it. Here's my challenge: write a coherent section for inclusion in the Canberra article entitled "Criticism of Canberra" (or something similar) and post it on the talk page. Include your sources. But remember, just because you and others believe Canberra to be boring this doesn't make everything (or anything) else stated in the Canberra article as untrue which you claim.

If what you write meets the Wikipedia editorial guidelines, I'll be happy to post it myself. MartinL-585 (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

150.203.230.8; still waiting for you to respond to my comments from September 2009 (if you can) 121.79.5.20 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC).

150.203.230.8 is a nutter

150.203.230.8; as others stated: prove it. Canberra is a planned city. Compared to Sydney (for example) it is indeed a paradise and, as someone who has worked in property development (large scale residential and industrial) in three different states I can personally state that the ACT is viewed as a great example good planning at a city and suburb level. Like all other jurisdictions, there are the headaches of dealing with the bureaucracy but compared to NSW, it is a breeze as there is only ONE level of government to deal with. Pollution, what pollution? Congestion, what congestion? Crime, maybe worth a mention with comparative crime rates to other capitals in Australia. I suggest you take a deep breath and move on. "Balance" does not require the inclusion of false-hoods. 121.79.5.20 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC).

Media - free to air TV in Canberra

The media section requires editing as the following is incorrect "....as well as four additional free-to-air digital services Prime HD, WIN HD, ABC2 and SBS News."

It should read "....as well as 11 additional free-to-air digital services Prime HD, 7Two, WIN HD, GO!, ABC HD, ABC2, ABC3, SBS HD, SBS 2, SBS News and One HD." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wormstrum (talk • contribs) 04:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Media section is correct as it states stations not channels. Bidgee (talk) 04:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC) I see what you mean, some how I completely missed it (Reason why I thought you were talking about the stations bit). Bidgee (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

SBS Two used to be called SBS News. Media section updated. MartinL-585 (talk) 05:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Main photo

I was wondering if a more relevant photo could be included in the initial section, such as the one in the article 'City, Australian Capital Territory'. Civic is the CBD of Canberra and a photo showing the skyline would be more in line with other pages relating to cities. Showing the Parliamentary axis only is like having the ANZAC bridge as the main photo for Sydney. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.13.31 (talk) 09:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be particularly difficult to find a skyline picture for Canberra, as we don't have the kind of skyline that other cities have. The picture that is up there today, looking down Anzac Avenue towards the Parliamentary Triangle, is probably one of the most iconic images of Canberra, but it is a particularly poor example. Could we find a better version of this image, perhaps? Trevar (talk) 01:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Canberra

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Canberra's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "s6":

• From History of the Australian Capital Territory: Sparke 1988, p. 6
• From Lake Burley Griffin: Sparke, p. 6.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This is now fixed. - Salamurai (talk) 23:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Civic

The article uses the word Civic twice without defining what it means. I assume it's the name for the CBD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schnitzi (talk • contribs) 11:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the second reference links to its page. Of course, this being Wikipedia, the page is called City instead of Civic.

File:Canberra From Black Mountain Tower.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Canberra From Black Mountain Tower.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 12, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-03-12. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 18:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A stitched panoramic view of Canberra, the capital city of Australia, as seen from the top of Black Mountain Tower. Among the many landmarks visible are (left-to-right) Mount Ainslie, Canberra International Airport (in the distance near the horizon), Australian National University (slightly below the city centre), and Lake Burley Griffin (centre-right).Photo: JJ Harrison

Criticism

The city has been acclaimed for its use of modernist architecture on a grand scale and for its somewhat utopian city plan. It has been criticized for the same reasons.

After a visit to Canberra, the French writer Simone de Beauvoir complained that all of its superquadras exuded "the same air of elegant monotony," and other observers have equated the city's large open lawns, plazas and fields to wastelands. As the city has matured, some of these have gained adornments, and many have been improved by landscaping, giving some observers a sense of "humanized" spaciousness. Although not fully accomplished, the "Australian utopia" has produced a city of relatively high quality of life, in which the citizens live in forested areas with sporting and leisure structure (the large parks) flanked by small commercial areas, bookstores and cafes; the city is famous for its cuisine and efficiency of transit.

Critics of Canberra's grand scale have characterized it as a modernist platonic fantasy about the future:

Nothing dates faster than people's fantasies about the future. This is what you get when perfectly decent, intelligent, and talented men start thinking in terms of space rather than place; and single rather than multiple meanings. It's what you get when you design for political aspirations rather than real human needs. You get miles of jerry-built platonic nowhere infested with Holdens. This, one may fervently hope, is the last experiment of its kind. The utopian buck stops here.

– Robert Hughes, The Shock of the New, Episode 4: Trouble in Utopia

No, not Canberra. Brasilia. Mostlyharmless (talk) 10:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)