Talk:Brisbane

Proposed Tunnel?

I think that the development of the North-South Bypass tunnel should be mentioned in the article. Surely such a costly and overhauling development deserves some recognition. Does anyone else agree? --Will465 (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The TransApex project is already mentioned with a link to it's own page, with a further link to the North-South Tunnel. Not sure road tunnels are that interesting to a general readership to need more. --Michael Johnson (talk) 03:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

As requested on my talk page, here's some feedback on the article:

• Lead - "Brisbane CBD" should be linked to or defined. I see it is linked in paragraph 1 of the history section but feel it should not be left undefined in the lead.  Done
• History - don't wikilink "Brisbane central business district" twice in such close proximity  Done
• History - whole paragraph starting "historic buildings...." is unsourced  Done
• History - "Brisbane tuff"? Presumably this is some sort of stone, but I've never heard of it, so might benefit from an appropriate wikilink  Done - it's a type of igneous rock
• History - "an interesting anecdote" - not sure this turn of phrase is truly encyclopedic  Done
• History - last two paragraphs are unsourced  Done
• Geography - all bar the last paragraph is unsourced
• Governance - lack of sourcing again  Done
• Economy - ....and again
• Education - no need for capital A on "A member of...."  Done
• Arts and entertainment - image alongside this section doesn't seem relevant, suggest it be moved elsewhere  Done
• Annaul events - "Major cultural events include the Ekka (the Royal Queensland Show, aka Royal National Association (RNA) Exhibition) is held each year in August" - not grammatically correct  Done
• Media - "Quest Newspapers (which is also owned by News Corporation.)" - full stop should not be inside brackets  Done

Quite a few little "niggles" there, but overall the article is very good, with excellent images. Just a few issues with the text, but if the ultimate aim is FA status then some more references would definitely be needed. Hope this helps!!! ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This should be helpful, thanks heaps :) — Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please...

I am looking for a reliable cite to cite the bit about the river mangroves growing in mud deposited during the flood. I know it's true, problem is I can't find anywhere that's not sketchy to attribute it to. If anyone could find a reliable source it would be much appreciated. Lankiveil (talk) 10:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC).

http://www.coastal.crc.org.au/pdf/HistoricalCoastlines/App_3_Timeline_BrisbaneRiver.pdf alludes to this a bit, so I've added it in. It's the best I could find...— Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Try The Brisbane River: A pictoral history by Longhurst, Robert; William Douglas or another reference on the Brisbane River article. I have seen it mentioned at least once somewhere. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hitorical Place Names: In 1924, I understand that the european settlement on the Redcliffe Peninsula was called "Humpybong". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celcom (talk • contribs) 12:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Brisbane

There was a recent insertion of a sentence about a serious squirmish between Australina and US soldiers in 1942 - where one person was killed. Considering to real battles and wars that Australia has been involved in; and facts like the headquarters of the Australina armed forces was in Brusbane - I find this seriously out of place. I questioned it originally as it needed some authority and indeed that has been put in place. But I suggest it is an odd entry. An encyclopedia about a city needs to be more circumspect. But I do not like edit wars and so I would seek comments before doing anytjhing. Alan Davidson (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt such a statement is necessary, support removal. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The statement is in the History section (it is a part of Brisbane's history). Only a short sentence that gives the internal link to the main article at Battle of Brisbane. I think it should stay. Sting_au Talk 03:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops, thought something else was being referred to. I don't see a reason why that one sentence shouldn't stay...— Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I disagree - I seem to be the only one at the moment. But, I suppose my objection is in part that in the context of a paragraph on WWII, it is misleading; "armed" and "battle" with "US" and "Australia" make it sound like a sanctioned part of the war where the two countries were ... at war. Particular stating it was "during World War II" makes it sounds like it was part of the war. I would suggest it should be described - more like - a civil unrest between visiting US personell and Australian servicemen which escalated to a serious brawl involving the firing of shots and one death. Taking words from the Battle of Brisbane Wiki site - how about this: "In 1942 Brisbane was the site of a violent clash between visiting US military personnel on one side and Australian servicemen and civilians on the other - resulting in one death and several injuries. This incident became known colloquially as the Battle of Brisbane. Alan Davidson (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah seems ok? But Battle of Brisbane remains an internal link right? and the sentence still needs a citation. Sting_au Talk 11:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Alan Davidson (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

GA nom?

Any thoughts on throwing this up? From what I can see the prose is OK, and most of the stuff that needs refs has it - a few extra eyes couldn't hurt. Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's easily to GA standard. I think it's even potentially FAC standard, to be honest. Lankiveil (talk) 12:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC).

OK - notes:

• lead's a bit slim, given size of the article.

• GA is a good bouncing board and a good place to leave it to mull over for a while. It is not necessary to be GA before FA but every once in a while some reviewer will pop up and state it is a prerequisite and you say no and yada yada. The longer teh FAC page the more glazed and fuzzy it all looks. You want a few comments there as possible (hopefully all supports) in case it all goes horridly pear-shaped..I'll keep looking. (grr..I meeant to get up Sydney before this..) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Beware stubby paras. If they are really short it won't hurt to combine them.

• Reduce repetition (I did a few as examples) - substitute or remove words and see if it reads as well - if it does, ditch it.

• Should there be something about it strectching to the Gold Coast (is it a conurbation yet?)
  • Not yet, no (hopefully it won't be for a long time). Dihydrogen Monoxide 11:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Have a read of Tony's great article on writing.

I'll look later cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Some notes that may be of use;

• The lead needs expansion.
• As a personal preference, I would have the Geography section before the History section
• "peninsula on the Brisbane River" Is peninsula the right word?
• "City of Greater Brisbane" Is this its official name? If so, it needs a cite. Greater Brisbane is used in a different context below and we should be consistent.
• Stubby paras need combining or expanding
• "The area now known as Brisbane was inhabited before European settlement..." Shouldn't this sentence be at the start of the history section? Indeed, more on the indigenous history is needed.
• Is it necessary to list the lat and long in the article body?
• "The lower population...now frequently replaced by steel or concrete. This section needs inline citations
• 1/4 = one quarter
• "Multi residence accommodations (such as apartment blocks) are relative newcomers to Brisbane..." doesn't quite scan
• Climate table. I'm quite fond of the one at Wagga Wagga, New South Wales, a GA
• "Brisbane's economy has white-collar and blue-collar industries" Doesn't sound particularly interesting (Don't all cities?) Perhaps a rewrite of this section which seems to be more about urban geography than economy.
• All the sub-sections in Economy should probably be removed.
• "Brisbane City Council as Australia's largest (by area) predominantly urban Local Government Area, is the most populous LGA in Australia" Does not scan
• "Brisbane is claimed to have the highest rate of population growth of any Australian capital city. The urban population reportedly grew.." claimed? reportedly? Definitive ABS stats should be available.
• University para could be expanded to be more interesting than a prose list. This also need sourcing.
• Venues para - needs sourcing and rewriting for clarity
• "Brisbane is the birthplace of internationally acclaimed singers, music bands, authors, actors, artists, sculptors and fashion designers" Yeah, and... Some examples (without going over the top) would be useful. Think internationally famous, Kylie standard. not artists of merely local or national fame. This should not be difficult
• Annual events - needs sourcing
• "The most popular sports in Brisbane are cricket, rugby union, rugby league and Australian rules football." needs a cite.
• "Teams from Brisbane also feature in minor competitions, including:" Is this really needed in the main article? Isn't that the purpose of Sport in Brisbane; to delve to this level of detail?
• Media - inline cites
• There is a list of private hospitals but not of the larger public ones?
• Transport - needs an extensive rewrite to improve the prose and needs inline citations for much of the section.
• Utilities - choppy paras
• Sister cities - lose the flags and write as prose.

I hope these are useful as a guide. I expect responses will include WP:SOFIXIT. Fair enough too; I will pitch in. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Red links

Articles for all those red links need to be created. --Sharkface217 18:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to draw attention to the fact that after creating William Street, Brisbane it was immediately nominated for deletion. Either the link for this street should be removed from the Brisbane article or if it is to be kept then references should be found to establish its significance. - Shiftchange (talk) 09:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the prod - a few sources (citing that the places mentioned are on said road) would go a long way - thanks. Dihydrogen Monoxide 09:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Would it may be a good idea to merge all those city street articles into a single article or list? There isn't that much of interest on, say, Alice Street or Margaret Street, but Eagle Street is not mentioned, despite having lots of very notable things on it. Lankiveil (talk) 12:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC).

I also posted info about this at WP:AWC (as well as challenges for other articles). So far at least one user has spotted it there and has been improving this article. --Sharkface217 22:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason why Eagle Street is not mentioned in the Brisbane article is because the streets mentioned were all named after British royalty - whereas Eagle Street was not. Anyway, Alice Street is an important street, in that the Brisbane City Botanic Gardens and Queensland Parliament House are both located there - and the entrance to the Queensland University of Technology is also off Alice Street. I agree, though, that Eagle Street is important. Figaro (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that. However, I think in any discussion of the major streets in Central Brisbane, Turbot Street and Eagle Street should probably be mentioned before, say, Margaret Street. Perhaps we should amend that sentence to "Streets named after female members include (Adelaide Street, Alice Street and Elizabeth Street)"? That way we don't have redlinks to non-notable streets, and we can add mentions to notable streets that don't fit into the naming scheme, like Eagle, Turbot, and Market?

Also, it's not important, but I believe that both QUT and Parliament House have their addresses on George Street, although you're correct in that they're at or near the corner of George and Alice Streets. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 07:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC).

Peer Review #2

Since the last peer review I put up a couple of years ago failed MISERABLY, I've thought it would be a great idea to put it up again, we could get some really constructive help to push the article in the right direction. Anyone agree/disagree? James Pinnell (talk) 08:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you're still around (Wikipedia:Meetup/Brisbane 2???). Sure, go ahead with a PR. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've done a lot of anonymous edits and some lurking, bit I figured it was time for an appearance ;) - I'll relodge a PR and we'll see what eventuates. James Pinnell (talk) 13:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I see an automated peer review was done using a javascript program. Automated review. What do people think of the suggestions generated by that program? Sting au Buzz Me... 02:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

By all means act on it, these things generally pick up MOS stuff that's useful. Peripitus has also added a review, which I'll get too at some stage (please beat me too it, guys!) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Done some work on this, but plenty more to do. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 05:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Local Government Areas

I think we should consider removing all but Brisbane from the LGA section of the Infobox. If I am in Logan, I wouldn't consider myself part of the state capital, similarly with Ipswich, Redcliffe, or Pine Rivers. Redlands perhaps, but really Brisbane is the City of Brisbane as defined by the City of Brisbane Act.

If we include Pine Rivers, Logan and Redlands, we could include the (soon to be former) Caboolture Shire. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 11:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

when they put together the data for the population of brisbane, they include all the surrounding cities and shires like redlands, logan ipswich etc. If you look at sydney, its split up into many different areas, so I think they should stay. Really the surrounding areas use brisbane for many things, and vice versa, so really we form a whole larger city, that people refer to as brisbane, though it has different names for different areas.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tristan 753 (talk • contribs) 12:25, February 24, 2008

That's fine. There needs to be care taken then with information about the City of Brisbane Act then (which I included in the lead). I'm not sure the best route to go with that one. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 13:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nicholas Perkins, that the other LGAs should be removed from the infobox. Ipswich, Logan and Redcliffe are their own cities and are not part of the city of Brisbane. - Shiftchange (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I beleive that the lga's should stay as many cities around the world include areas surrounding the main city as that city informally. Look at Los Angeles, many cities have grown to form a huge conurbation or big city, same applies for Brisbane, various cities surrounding the city have grown to form the extensive —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lav90 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Ipswich has never been part of Brisbane and the same goes for Logan and other surrounding councils. To claim so, would be inaccurate. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but many of these cities are considered part of the Brisbane Metropolitan Area, which is why the population is at about 2 million. Well soon ipswich will be entirely part of Brisbane considering the huge development occurring along the western corridor. Clare94 (talk) 12:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Brisbane Metropolitan Area is a bit of a weasel word. Brisbane has a population of 1.85 million. South East Queensland has a population of 2.77 million and it is a much better term for describing the wider Brisbane area. Wollongong and Newcastle aren't included in the population of Sydney and Bendigo, Ballarat and Geelong aren't included in the population of Melbourne. MvjsTalking 05:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It is my understanding that Brisbane Statistical Local Area (the source for the quoted population of 1.85m) covers Ipswich, Logan, the former Pine Rivers, Redcliffe and Caboolture and Redlands. There is a fundamental tension in this article about wheter it represents the City of Brisbane (an LGA) or the Brisbane metropolitan area. For population, it includes the greater Brisbane area, e.g. "It is also the third most populous city in Australia, behind southern rivals Sydney and Melbourne)" This is not true if you only consider the City of Brisbane. Later in the lede, it states "Brisbane is controlled by the Brisbane City Council." which is only partly true if you are considering the greater Brisbane area. This is only the lede but the mixed messages continue throughout the article. I feel the article needs to pick a definition and stick to it. My personal view is that this article should be about the greater Brisbane area from Caboolture to Browns Plains, from Yamanto to Victoria Point and an article called City of Brisbane should cater for the LGA.. I am aware this is a minority view. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The City of Brisbane's population is much smaller than described in this article a mere 956,129, smaller than Perth and Adelaide. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually wasn't aware of some of these details. I agree with you wholeheartedly that the article should pick a definition and stick with it. It's not good for the article to have this ambiguity. MvjsTalking 06:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Media section

This section could do with some mention of the multitude of community radio stations that operate in Brisbane. --Aioth (talk) 07:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeh good ide, like 4ZZZ etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tristan 753 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Climate table

It was noted here that a climate table similar to the one at Wagga Wagga, New South Wales#Climate would help. Anyone wanna go for it? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll stick something together tonight. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 07:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

And that's done. The data is only from 1994-2007 as they moved their reporting station in 1994. Without actual yearly data it is impossible to combine the two (and might not be representative. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 11:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice work! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 09:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I"m just wondering why the shift to climate data is from the Brisbane Aero station? The older table quoted that from the Brisbane Regional station, and i believe that this should still be the case as not only is the data collected closer to the actual center of the city but the collection period is quite a bit lengthier. The new design is certainly preferable though. $eti (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Brisbane Regional was closed in 1994, while temperature data is only available up to 1986. There were two Brisbane Aeros, with first closing in 2000 and the second opening that in 1992. The choices of operating recording locations is Brisbane Aero, Archerfield or Redlands. I felt that Brisbane Aero was a better choice. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 04:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

BCEC images

As part of Brisbane's Wikimania bid, the Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre have kindly released a number of images into the public domain for us to use on the bid. However, since they're PD, they can probably also be used here. I have put together a little gallery on Commons:

• commons:User:Lankiveil/Brisbane

Hopefully someone finds this useful. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC).

Oh wow, very nice. I'll get someone to get the OTRS stuff done and then add them in. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 11:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Reviewed and Accepted as a Good Article

So since I've requested a GA review, it's only equable for me to give one. I choose this article because it's a place I've been to at least once in my life.

1. Standard of writing

• clear prose, correct spelling and grammar
• brief, informative lead
• lists are incorporated

2. Verifiability

• 62 references, none of them blogs
• No contentious material relating to living persons

3. Breadth

• Just about every aspect about a city is covered and it answers all the questions coming to my mind
• One aspect is not covered: the defence of Brisbane. This may link to the historical issue of the Brisbane Line. Please tell us what military assets (defence establishments, etc) are available to secure and defend the city by air, land and sea/river.
• I would also like to know if any part of it has ever been threatened by any significant bushfires. I presume drought is not an issue. Do swarms of cane toads cause problems at any time of year, similar to the way legions of Bogong moths descend on Sydney and Canberra at seasonal times?
• The history section makes no observations for the period 1942-1982 and 1988 onward
• Who does it have local government Sister city arrangements with?
• Tell us about the existence of any national parks within its vast area

4. Neutral

• Yes, it's not a public relations piece and not an attack piece

5. Stability

• History shows collaboration between editors

6. Illustration

• You have a CBD map and an aerial view of the river but no illustration that demonstrates the full 5900km2. Remedy this.
• Otherwise there are many other appropriate and well-placed images with explanatory captions

Good article.Prisoner Of Integrity (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Brisbane_GA. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

GA reassessment

This article's GA status has been challenged. Click the link for areas that are still in need of improvement. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Water Usage

The article currently states that the water restrictions has had the effect of "giving Brisbane the lowest per capita usage of water of any Western city in the world." I have added a cite on this, but it's not too detailed, so if anyone can link to some hard figures on this, that would be great. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC).

I thought I removed this statement; I certainly intended to. I don't think it's citable, and it could easily suffer from Recentism. I think removing it would be a good idea. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on recentism. I suspected that it wasn't really verifiable, but optimistically hoped that someone would prove me wrong =). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC).

Rewriting the lead?

It was brought up in the GA review that the lead of the article is a little choppy, which is something that I happen to agree with. I have come up with an alternate version that I think flows a little better, using Canberra and Hobart for inspiration:

Draft lead, hidden for easier discussion.

Brisbane (Template:Pron-en-au) is the state capital of Queensland. With a population of 1,820,400, Brisbane is the third largest city in Australia and the most populous city in Queensland. It is situated on the Brisbane River on low-lying Floodplain between Moreton Bay and the Great Dividing Range in south-eastern Queensland. A large portion of Brisbane is controlled by the Brisbane City Council and also covers parts of several adjoining local government areas. In 1925, the City of Brisbane Act was passed by the Queensland Government, abolishing 20 local government authorities in the city and forming the largest local authority in Australia, covering 1,200 square kilometres (463.3 sq mi).

The city is named after Sir Thomas Brisbane, the Governor of New South Wales from 1821 – 1825. The settlement grew from a penal colony established at his direction in 1824 at Redcliffe, 28 kilometres (17.4 mi) to the north. The colony moved to the current location of the Brisbane CBD in 1825, and free settlers were permitted from 1842. It was chosen as the capital when Queensland was proclaimed a separate colony in 1859. The city played a central role in the Allied campaign during World War II as the South West Pacific headquarters for General Douglas MacArthur.

As the capital of Queensland, the Parliament of Queensland sits in Brisbane, and the city is the location of many significant buildings and institutions, including the State Library of Queensland and South Bank Parklands, as well as being the base of operations for major Australian companies such as Virgin Blue and Suncorp.

Thoughts? The buildings and institutions listed at the end are purely drawn "out of a hat" as t'were, so if anyone can think of more encompassing institutions, I'm happy to take suggestions. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC).

Seems OK at a glance, though I would suggest we get the article where we want it in terms of content before the lead. The lead should reflect the rest of the article, which is tough if we haven't done the rest of the article fully! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, but I think the structure of the article is fine as it is, as far as I can see the changes that need to be made are primarily re-writes for style and the inclusion of additional citations, not the insertion of any major new information or content. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC).

Agree that this will need work as new things are added to the article, but I think this would be a good place to start future leads from. It would complement the current article and could be updated as new pieces are added.Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 10:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Brisbane Cricket Ground/Gabba

While the 'Gabba is formally known as the Brisbane Cricket Ground, no-one in Brisbane and no-one in Cricket or Australian football circles ever uses the term. I would lay London to a brick that most Brisbanites would not know the 'Gabba had a formal name. Insisiting on formality here is misleading and confusing to the lay reader. If I was up for an argument I would propose renaming the BCG (BCG, who calls it the BCG?) article as well. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm in Brisbane and you're right that everyone here calls it The Gabba. No one ever uses Brisbane Cricket Ground or BCG. I see on the Brisbane Lions article they refer to playing their home games at the G which is short for Gabba of course.--Sting au Buzz Me... 07:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well that's a concern, since the MCG is also known to Victorians as the G. The Gabba I would be fine with. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 08:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, it looks like I'm being outvoted, although I think the correct name should be used here. --Dmol (talk) 09:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is a consensus yet. Let's sit on this for a few days, there is no hurry to make a permanent decision. Perhaps a wider view may be needed. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I do know the Gabba has a formal name, but yeah, I agree that we should refer to it as Gabba...much more common...who does call it BCG? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Does it matter who calls it the Gabba? "It is the only name that most Queenslanders know" does not matter, this is not queensland.wikipedia it is a world wide english.wikipedia. JayKeaton (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine, who anywhere, other that the Gabba Trust, calls it the Brisbane Cricket Ground? From WP:NAME, "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." For a specific example of this principle see the article name for the New Zealand national rugby team - "All Blacks" Like the All Blacks, The Gabba is a special case where the colloquial name is the most appropriate. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[of wikipedia] calls it the Brisbane Cricket Ground, [none] of Wikipedia uses Gabba. Not to mention that you are disturbing Wikipedia guidelines by having a link saying one thing leading to another. JayKeaton (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia as a source is a self-reference and circular. The reason most articles link to Brisbane Cricket Ground is because the article (for now) is called that and editors have tried to avoid redirects. If you look at what links to Brisbane Cricket Ground, you will see that "The Gabba", currently a redirect page, is actually fairly heavily used given the attention normally given to avoiding redirects. I would suggest that if the links to Brisbane Cricket Ground are followed back, a large proportion are actualy written as "the Gabba" with a piped link to Brisbane Cricket Ground. See for example, Dick Reynolds and Bill O'Reilly where "gabba" is linked to the Brisbane Cricket Ground page. As for disturbing Wikipedia guidelines, can you show the guideline in question? Linking topics to differently named relevant articles is what piped links are for. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The type in "Brisbane Cricket Ground" has received 1331 hits this month, the type in "The Gabba" has received only 106. Anyway as for guidelines see Principle of least astonishment. Also according to WP:Intuitive the piped links are not very intuitive, as those who do not already know about the colloquial name of "the gabba" will not understand that is it is referring to the Brisbane Cricket Ground unless they click on the link, and if they print the article they will never know what "the gabba" means as the actual, legal, accurate and most factual name of the grounds will be lost. And finally colloquialism and slang should not be used to hide the actual links as it is just purely unprofessional and misleading, hindering the usefulness of the link for anyone outside of Australia. JayKeaton (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You think it is "purely unprofessional and misleading"? I just checked your user page and you have userboxes that state you have made 320,000 edits (it's 4045) and that you've been nominated for the Nobel Peace prize 57 times? --Sting au Buzz Me... 06:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

My user page is my own page to do what I like with, and it's not a main namespace articles so Wikipedia policy and guidelines do not apply to me. But my user page is not the topic of discussion here. JayKeaton (talk) 07:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:USER. Your userpage is for anything that is compatible with the Wikipedia project. You can't actually do what you like with it. Just like any other page on Wikipedia anyone can view it and in some instances make edits to it. The userboxes I mentioned look to me like WP:NONSENSE? That guideline tells me that editors may remove such material to article talk pages OR in fact user talk pages. So I've hardly begun and already see guidelines you say do not apply to you? I'm sorry but it's just hard for me to take your comments of colloquialism being unprofessional and misleading seriously when you display such nonsense on your very own userpage.--Sting au Buzz Me... 10:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If you really wish to discuss these, then please talk about it on my talk page instead of the Brisbane articles talk page. And WP:NONSENSE doesn't apply to talk pages. Please keep this talk page related to Brisbane. And it doesn't look like you have anything to say about the Brisbane Cricket Ground links, despite directing me to the talk page in your edit summary, so I correct them again. JayKeaton (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't in my edit summary so I think you mean someone else. As for my comments on the Brisbane Cricket Ground links I thought I gave my view in the second post of this section.--Sting au Buzz Me... 06:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I assumed that was your edit summary from memory, I should have checked. JayKeaton (talk) 10:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The venue's logo shows the name as being "The Gabba", and the Queensland Government's Major Sports Facility Authority website refers to the ground as "The Gabba" see here for these two. On the [history page for the ground, I quote "The Brisbane Cricket Ground is better known as 'The Gabba'". Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 04:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If "The Gabba" is the official name for it and "Brisbane Cricket Ground" is the colloquial name for it then the article Brisbane Cricket Ground needs to me moved to The Gabba and all instance of "Brisbane Cricket Ground" (except a short sentence that explains that "Brisbane Cricket Ground" is a nickname for it) all over Wikipedia needs to be changed to "The Gabba". I'm astounded that for so long Wikipedia has been refering to The Gabba by its "Brisbane Cricket Ground" nickname for so long. Per Wikipedia guidelines we must remove most of colloquial uses of "Brisbane Cricket Ground" and use the official name for it instead. JayKeaton (talk) 05:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the mature response. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 07:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I feel that it would be appropriate to move this discussion to Talk:Brisbane Cricket Ground. The discussion is in regards to the naming of the article. If there needs to be discussion to bring about consensus on using the term "The Gabba" in the Brisbane article, it would make sense to have that remain here. I will create a heading over on the Brisbane Cricket Ground talk page with a note about the discussion here. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 07:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made a request at WP:RM, for the record. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Redcliffe

I have have removed the following sentence...

"The settlement grew from a penal colony established at his direction in 1824 at Redcliffe, 28 kilometres (17.4 mi) to the north."

It is incorrect to suggest that the settlement in Brisbane 'grew' from the settlement in Redcliffe. These are separate settlements. The settlement in Redcliffe was closed when they moved to Brisbane. Furthermore, it is incorrect to suggest that Redcliffe is 28kms north of Brisbane. Redcliffe is a total of 3km north of Brisbane separated only by the Petrie river. Aggressivesecularist (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, yes you are correct in that the settlement moved to Brisbane – it was left and abandoned until the 1860s. However, if the "BS" is correct as it was written, in that the settlement moved to "the current location of the Brisbane CBD" at North Quay, then it is "28 kilometres (17.4 mi) to the north". Redcliffe (or the former Redcliffe City Council area to be correct in this context) is immediately north of the Brisbane City Council municipal area across Bramble Bay, however the first settlement location is actually a measurable 28 km north of the second settlement location, between Humpybong Creek in Redcliffe and North Quay in the Brisbane central business district. I'll reinstate this with some clarification and improvements from further research with citations.  SEO⁷⁵ 03:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"Petrie River"? Where is that? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Pine River is meant.  SEO⁷⁵ 04:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Picture in infobox, and also the Locater diagram

This simply has to be consistent with Melbourne and Sydney if wikipedia is to have any credibility. If you disagree, please state logically what your argument is. In the meantime I don't see any reason that Brisbane differs from the other two biggest cities in Australia. Thanks.

Brisbane Man (talk)

Its been throughly discussed that the map is to be in the infobox on the page. You cant just go around and changing it without consensus. Los Angeles and Adelaide have maps on their infoboxes. --[[::User:Arnzy|Arnzy]] ([[::User talk:Arnzy|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Arnzy|contribs]]) 00:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, arnzy you are correct. However Sydney and Melbourne, two more significant specimens in this case, do not. Do you see why what you said is irrelevent? Also, Las Angeles does indeed have a photo of the city skyline in the infobox. It has the locater underneath. Therefore, I think it is fine to have both of them in the infobox. However just having the locater is unfair to brisbane, and discriminatory.

Brisbane Man (talk) 00:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Because those 2 are "more significant" cities doesnt mean its a "me too" type approach either. Earlier archive discussions over images and edit comments have discussed that the map is to be included in the infobox, whether if a editor likes it or not. I would throughly suggest discussing any major changes before applying them. --[[::User:Arnzy|Arnzy]] ([[::User talk:Arnzy|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Arnzy|contribs]]) 00:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you Arnzy, Brisbane Man is correct to say that the Sydney and Melbourne Pages are more appealing, due to both including pictures within the infobox. Brisbane is a large city and is recognized by many through-out the world, it is vital for them immediately know which city they are reading by seeing an image of the city itself. The map isn't as important and should be put out of the infobox. (talk —Preceding comment was added at 22:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok Arnzy, you have made your point. I think there can be appropriate to have both a city shot and a geographical map showing where the location of Brisbane is. And if wikipedia is to have any credibility, consistency must be maintained. I think it is a strong point that Brisbane should have similar page design to the two bigger cities Melbourne and Sydney. Any personal reasons against this logical point do not make any sense besides personal feelings which do not belong here. If this has been discussed in the past then it seems as if it is important to bring this topic up again as it is clearly a consistency issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisbane Man (talk • contribs) 01:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

While I really don't care one way or the other about the image in the infobox, the fact of the matter is that the editors to consistently work on this article have agreed to keep the map there. That is the clear consensus and your unilateral overriding of that consensus (note: Wikipedia:Consensus is an official Wikipedia policy) is quickly becoming disruptive. Please stop adding the image before you have consensus here to do so. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope you can see the base of my view. It is quite simple. It might seem unilateral but if you take a look at the other major cities in Australia, Perth, Darwin, Sydney and Melbourne all have a similar setup to the one I believe should be used for Brisbane also.

Not having a city image shot is doing a great injustice to Brisbane's page as it is the image most people will first see when they come to the Wiki page.

You cannot argue against the fact that four other major cities in Australia have already used this method already. If you dispute what I am saying, you are disputing what other editors have already agreed on on these other pages. Therefore there is already a "consensus" that an image of the city should be in the infobox, and that this locating image should be below similar to Sydney's page. Any opposing view to this, please discuss below, and mention how the other city's pages are also wrong. But please don't give Brisbane special treatment, I want to see you bringing up an issue with Sydney and Melbourne too, if you feel that strongly about it. Brisbane Man (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You are missing my point rather spectacularly. I don't "feel that strongly about it". I said pretty clearly at the start of my comment " I really don't care one way or the other about the image in the infobox". However, your continual changing of the image, agaist consensus here is disruptive. If you want to swap the images, demonstrate consensus here first. I fail to see what relevance the Melbourne and Sydney article have here at all; why do we have to be consistent, the Melbourne and Sydney articles contain heaps of stuff not here and vice versa. I also fail to see how Brisbane is being "discriminated" against when it is the editors working on this article (many of whom are Queenslanders) who prefer it this way. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I prefer having an image in the infobox, and then the locator map as the first image in the article. I dodn't really care about the consistency issue, but a good image sums up a place on earth better than a map and a dot. IMHO this image sums up the city pretty well. Wongm (talk) 01:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That is a really nice image Wongm, and I agree with using that as the Infobox picture. So how do we go about getting a "consensus" here? Are you for or against having what Wongm suggested, Mattingbn? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisbane Man (talk • contribs) 01:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said above I don't really care one way or the other. However, most of the editors here have expressed a preference for the map in the past. To post a comment here and get one response in support while giving editors only one hour to respond does not equal consensus. Read wp:consensus and wait for the others to add their input. There is no hurry to make any change today or tomorrow and if you don't allow others to feel they have had their say the edit warring will continue. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, guys please leave your opinions here thanks Brisbane Man (talk) 03:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have a link to the previous discussion on this issue? That could shed some light on the editor's thought process of leaving the map. Mvjs (talk) 03:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Adelaide has a map like Brisbane in its infobox Mvjs (talk) 03:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Furthermore, I don't see how Brisbane having a map in its infobox is discriminatory or demeaning in any way. Could you explain this logic to me? Mvjs (talk) 03:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I am aware adelaide is similar. However it is the minority amongst Austrailan cities and therefore does not set a precedent. You can focus on Adelaide as much as you want, but the fact is Melbourne and Sydney, as well as Perth, all have a picture in the infobox. Brisbane having a map in it's infobox rather then being the first image (See Sydney) is discriminatory as it is distinctly different to the 1st, 2nd, and 4th biggest populated cities of Australia, and looks far less appealing to wikipedia readers. Please click these two links one after another and look at the appeal of both pages. Sydney -> Brisbane. Already, people will be more interested in reading the Sydney article over the Brisbane article as it catches the eye and will draw readers in. As mentioned previously, a picture can summarise a city a lot better then an unappealing dot on a map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisbane Man (talk • contribs) 04:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe more people know of the locations of the mentioned cities because of various reasons (distinct location [Perth] or large population for example [Melbourne or Sydney]). There is nothing wrong or unappealing about a map, it shows Brisbane's location in Australia and can inform readers on this. Wikipedia articles are not an ad as you seem to be making it out to be "catches the eye and will draw readers in" There are many Wikipedia policies that go against aesthetics. It is not simply "a dot on a map" as Brisbane Man is making it out to be, it is a representation of the location of the city, its surrounding geography and its location within the state and the country. Mvjs (talk) 04:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly why did Brisbane Man change Sydney's image to a map stating it would "Making article more encyclopaedic by changing infobox to Locater" then revert it three minutes later? Mvjs (talk) 05:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi mvjs, sorry but your arguments about Brisbane being different are invalid. I just checked your page and realised you are from Melbourne, I don't mean to be rude but I think you have some natural biasm in regards to Brisbane as you live in a similar City. Why don't you focus on changing melbourne's infobox to just a map with a dot instead of worrying about Brisbane's? You can't have it both ways, or claim that Brisbane is someway different because of it's "population" or "non-distinguishable location". That is perposterous and absurd. About your marketing comments, well as I have said, lets see all other similar cities changed and I will then take your point as valid. Until that point, I am still correct in that Brisbane is of no exception to other cities in Australia therefore there is no issue with placing a shot of Brisbane in the Infobox ala Sydney/Melbourne. Your aesthetics point has no validity until similar cities such as Melbourne are the same. Melbourne is of no difference as it is not the largest population and many people would have no idea where it is in the world. However it still warrants it's own picture in the infobox. Please lose your double standards, and or consider the possibility that you may have natural biasm towards Brisbane, being a resident of Melbourne, which in this case warrants your opinion invalid. Brisbane Man (talk) 06:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Brisbane Man, I lived in Brisbane most of my life. Please consider that before you question my motives. Wikipedia is not about advertising, promotion, or making every city's page exactly the same. Every page will feature decisions that take in to account the particular situation. Again, I'd like to reiterate, can anyone find the previous discussion about map/skyline in the infobox? I'm sure that will shed much needed light on this discussion. Mvjs (talk) 06:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok no problem thanks for clearing that up. Anyone reading this please leave your opinion thanks! Brisbane Man (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I did a search though these talk page archive (and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Brisbane) for 'map', 'info' and 'infobox' and found no prior discussions about image-vs-map in the infobox. Wongm (talk) 06:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... chances are nobody objected before so we just went with the status quo. (See also BRD - we were still on the "B" stage.) Anyway I don't care too much either way. I'd prefer it the way it is on London if we could get that. —Giggy 06:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer the London look also.--Sting Buzz Me... 10:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

As it happens, functionality to enable the "London look" is coded into Template:Infobox Australian Place[1]. Unfortunately the locator map isn't working properly and always seems to force the locator dot to the left, regardless of the coordinates provided. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

A solution that should make everyone happy

After a bit of research I found some infomation, here and here, that enabled me to get the inbuilt locator map functioning as it was intended. Using the inbuilt function allows you to have both an image and a locator map in the infobox so there's really no need for arguments as to which is preferred. Some may argue that a map of Australia is preferred to a map of Queensland but I think, as apparently did those involved in the creation of the template, that the individual state map gives a much better indication of the location within the state. I made a test edit to the article (no, I didn't get rid of that horrible whitespace at the top of the article), which I've reverted, so you can see what it looks like. You can view it here. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ideally both images would have the same width, but anyways, nice work mate! —Giggy 06:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

To make them the same size you can reduce the size of the image to 230px (easy) or increase the size of the locator map to 270px (requires edits to template). The first has the undesired effect of reducing the lead image, which should really be 300px anyway, and the second would make Queensland a lot bigger than it is now. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks nice Aussieguy, is it possible for the infobox to be extended down into the start of the article like London's is? (to get rid of the white space)User_Talk:Brisbane Man 11:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems alright to me. Picture first, followed by the map indicator seems to be logical flow here. Don't mind either way. --[[::User:Arnzy|Arnzy]] ([[::User talk:Arnzy|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Arnzy|contribs]]) 11:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The whitespace is being caused by the first image in the article. Placing the image tag immediately after the "History" heading, as it is now, stops that section from starting until the image can be displayed, which is not until after the infobox. It's easily fixed by moving the image tag after the infobox. The image stays in the same place but the text can then start immediately after the TOC. I tried doing that[2] but the change was reverted for reasons that I don't completely understand. According to the edit summary it was to return the image "to its rightful position in the history section"[3] but when I made the change I checked at 800x600, 1024x768 and 1280x1024 (ie the most common resolutions) and the image was displayed in the history section so the edit summary doesn't reaslly make sense. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you try contacting the editor who reverted your edit?--Sting Buzz Me... 00:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't bother. I wouldn't have even mentioned it if Brisbane Man hadn't asked about whitespace. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Preferred image?

Which image do you think fits brisbane best as the opening infobox picture?

• 
  Brisbane skyline blue
• 
  Storey Bridge and CОBD
• 
  Skyline by Night
• 
  Brisbane City Hall

Brisbane Man (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, although it's not normally appropriate to do so, I've converted the thumbnails in your post to a gallery because my response was going to end up next to the thumbnails, rather than after them.

In answer to your question, as somebody who is not from Brisbane, I was immediately drawn to the first two images. I think they're more representative of the city as a whole. Image:BrisbaneByNight2004.jpg is too dark and Image:Brisbane City Hall.jpg is really not recognisable enough to non-Queenslanders to use as lead image in a major city article. I prefer Image:Brisbane CBDandSB.jpg to Image:Brisbane skyline bluesky.jpg because it's a larger image and is less generic than a shot of a group of buildings that really could be anywhere. That said, Image:Brisbane skyline bluesky.jpg might be more suitable if the locator map is enabled because the infobox is getting huge. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That's cool dude, im a noob when it comes to the code stuff anyway, but whats up with you reverting the page? Brisbane Man (talk) 05:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it was because we should achieve a consensus on what image to use in the article and such before going and changing the article? I personally think that the first image (Brisbane skyline blue) is a better representation of the city, the Storey Bridge image has the CBD covered by the Bridge. It is more a great photo of the Bridge rather than of Brisbane. I agree with AussieLegend that the final two images are probably out of the question, for the clarity issues with the night image and the City Hall not really been a representation of Brisbane as a whole and only recognisable to locals. Regardless, I'd be happy with either of the first two images. Mvjs (talk) 07:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I definitely think Image:Brisbane CBDandSB.jpg is the best choice. Thanks Bris Man (and everyone else) for being happy to discuss this, btw. (Oh, and clicky ;-)) —Giggy 07:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I prefer this one too. It is clear bright picture of the river, citycat, bridge and tallest buildings, which are all more or less representative of the city. No doubt that in 18 months, Vision Brisbane will completely dominate the skyline and a new photo will be required. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Image:Brisbane CBDandSB.jpg is the one to go for, as it includes three major identifiers of Brisbane (Story Bridge, CityCat, Brisbane River) and is also an attractive picture. --TripleThree (talk) 06:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

As I explained in detail at User talk:Brisbane Man#Brisbane (continued), I rolled back the edits for the reason suggested by Mvjs and because your reversion, which appears to have been a cut and paste of the whole infobox from your earlier, opposed version, reintroduced errors in the infobox that I had previously corrected. I have rolled back your edits (again) to the corrected version and you should wait until we have clear consensus before changing the image. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey AussieLegend, thats ok. I didn't mean to hurt anyones feelings by changing, i just think the current map makes the head of the article so ugly. Oh well, hopefully it can be changed soon enough. Also, i think that state map that you had in that test edit looks really sweet, i support that 1000000%. And giggy im not going to be in brisbane until uni starts, too busy hanging out here McCauley Weir. sorry boss :) Oh and also i'd probably have to vote for the first image, mostly because it would look good in a small size to save space, but im pretty easy either way. Brisbane Man (talk) 12:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• 
  Map

I've reverted edits by User:Lav90 yet again, as he/they jumped ahead and put the image again when this was still under discussion, let alone the infobox is being modified to accomodate both map and image. --[[::User:Arnzy|Arnzy]] ([[::User talk:Arnzy|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Arnzy|contribs]]) 04:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have also reverted this users edits on several occasions. I know we are supposed to assume good faith, but I suspect this users edits are deliberately disruptive? I wish they would do as the rest of us do and read article talk pages, they might see this is under discussion. Also not signing comments and lack of edit summaries I feel is showing a lack of interest in the acceptable way of doing things around here? I've left a note about the edit summaries. So perhaps that will make a difference? Personally I'll be glad when an acceptable image and the modified map (small full Aus' probably best) is up and running as we are continually reverting one persons opinion of which image to use. I think most of us liked the image presented here on the talk page?--Sting Buzz Me... 00:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Guys please, lets get this image thing rolling. I'm trying to be nice and to wait for you guys to sort it out but i can only wait and be polite for so long —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisbane Man (talk • contribs) 06:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll have to wait and be polite for as long as it takes to achieve consensus which, at the moment, seems to be definitely that we should have an image AND a locator map. The preference expressed here seems to be that the image should be Image:Brisbane CBDandSB.jpg however recent edits to the article seem to prefer Image:Brisbane skyline bluesky.jpg. Of course if the editors concerned aren't willing to express why they prefer that image when they seem happy to make comments of user pages, their preferences carry less weight.

I'm really not sure why this is taking so long. Does anyone have any opinion against the apparent consensus? I should stress that if we go for the locator map in the infobox it can't be one of Australia. The infobox isn't set up for it. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I think I made it known I prefer the Image:Brisbane CBDandSB.jpg image as it has the City behind the bridge and a city cat in view, and in my opinion is the nicer one from the choices offered. Also think a smaller locater map preferably Australia rather than just Queensland is needed. I don't think we have reached consensus on this yet? I'm sick of the edits being made changing the locater map for that image Brisbane Man (an account created on 4th July) wants added. Considering that this is obviously still under discussion here on the talk page, any changes to the image and/or locater map should be considered as disruptive edits and reverted.--Sting Buzz Me... 11:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, the infobox title is "Brisbane Queensland" so it seems more logical and consistent that the map shows the location of Brisbane in Queensland, rather than Brisbane in Australia. If you don't know where Queensland is in Australia then it's just a matter of clicking on the Queensland link which takes you to the Queensland article where there is a map showing the location of Queensland in Australia (not Queensland in the world), just like the Australia article has a map of the world, not the solar system. A smaller map, eg one of Australia, is really pretty useless because all it shows you is where Brisbane is roughly. A state map gives you a much better idea of where in the state Brisbane is. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the Queensland map is more appropriate. - Shiftchange (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I can go with the Qld map. Better to get the whole image and map saga sorted out quickly. Rather than having long drawn out discussions. Anyone not happy with the CBD & SB picture?--Sting Buzz Me... 00:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I am just putting my full weight and support behind the Queensland map in preference to the Australia map for the reasons stated above by Aussie Legend. That was legendary stuff. Also i like both the Story Bridge pic and the other one, so if more people like storey bridge then i think we should just go with it. I mean it's not too hard to change if it ends up looking bad. Comeon lets get this rolling guys! Good progress so far but lets not stop :) Brisbane Man (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I strongly prefer using an Australia map over a Queensland map for the locator, simply on the basis that someone totally unfamiliar with Australian geography is likely to find that an Australia map has more context than a Queensland map. As far as the photograph goes, I prefer the version without the Story Bridge, but have no firm feelings one way or the other really - they're both pretty fine images. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC).

Someone unfamiliar with the geography of Australia who is seeking greater context should check the Geography of Australia article. Since, as the first sentence in the article makes clear, Brisbane is the capital of Queensland, that is what a map should show. It's like having a map of Oceania dipicting Canberra's location. - Shiftchange (talk) 03:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we could have one map in the infobox and the other in the geography section? Brisvegas 02:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer the Qld map in the box myself, but would suggest agree at the suggestion of other map placed in the geography section, whichever way the map and images go. --[[::User:Arnzy|Arnzy]] ([[::User talk:Arnzy|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Arnzy|contribs]]) 03:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable compromise, provided there's an appropriate copyedit to justify the existence of the map in the article, which already has a few more images than I'd like to see. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Comeon guys... lets get this over and done!! If nothing is happening i'm going to do this myself, even though it won't be as "professional" as some of you guys, and then you'll keep reverting it and say "go to discussion". Well i AM in discussion and nothing is happening! Can I have permission to start changing this? Why is this locater a big deal? Can't we just screen shot the queensland image, or australia image, whatever, and have a seperate PNG file just for brisbane? is that so bad to have its own image rather then some piece of software that puts the dot on manually, even though viewers won't notice the difference?? btw go away SineBot!! Brisbane Man (talk) 00:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I still would prefer the Australia map (because I think it's a bit much asking someone to go to another article just to learn where Brisbane is in relation to other major world cities), but what Arnzy has suggested sounds like a reasonable compromise and one that I'd agree to. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC).

I concur with Lankiveil and supported Arnzy's suggested compromise. —Giggy 10:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm really fine with either of the pictures of Brisbane but I definitely think that it should indicate Brisbane's position in Australia rather than Queensland. I think you can assert Brisbane's location in Queensland very well with the Australia map and is also going to provide a click in the mind of someone who has never been or seen Queensland - the iconic Australian shape will be familiar to most people. You can see both where Brisbane is located in Queensland as well as where it is in Australia. I support Arnzy's compromise - infobox will give people at a glance where Brisbane is located in relation to Australia and if one is needing to see exactly where Brisbane is in detail in Queensland, they can scroll to the Geography section Mvjs (talk) 10:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

As consensus seems to have been reached, I've gone ahead and made the change. The infobox now has the Story Bridge picture as well as the map of Queensland. Happy to discuss further if there are any objections to this. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC).

LDS temple

Do you think it is worth adding that there is an LDS temple in Brisbane? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mantion (talk • contribs) 06:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

No. There's also a Buddhist temple, a Church of Scientology and just about every other religion you want to mention. So unless they were all given a summary under a religion section I see no need for it. I'm unsure if other capital city articles go into places of religious worship much? It just seems trivial to me.--Sting Buzz Me... 22:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Sting above, but isn't the temple itself in Woolloongabba, Queensland? Might be worth a mention there. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC).

Cloudland, Bellevue and the Deen Brothers

Is there room in this article or the History of Brisbane for mention of the Deen Brothers, particularly Cloudland and the Bellevue Hotel's midnight demolition. THese were major events of cultural significance to Brisbane. --Biatch (talk) 04:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they were significant and newsworthy changes to the architectural history of Brisbane. Worthy of a few lines.--Dmol (talk) 13:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sister Cities?

Surely Brisbane has a sister city or two? I know for a fact that Brisbane, California, is a sister city of Brisbane, Queensland's, but I'm certain I read somewhere of others, particularly one in Japan (it rings a bell). Anyone have any citations/willing to edit it? Damienzor (talk) 11:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The City of Brisbane has several sister cities however, these are of the City of Brisbane rather than of Brisbane. Mvjs (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Demographics of Brisbane

This is Lav90, i would really like to join the good side of the wikipedia group, after so many confrontations from administrators. I was only trying to help by making the Brisbane Pages more appealing, i did not try to alter any facts or anything. If you could hear me out and give me one more chance, that would be great. I asure you that i have learnt my lesson. But i think the demographics page Lasvegas90 created was vital and should be recreated, similar to what is featured for Sydney and Melbourne. I would like to appeal for a request to it, showing the Brisbane CoB dots.png image as it shows the various ethnic groups featured through-out the city. It is vital to upgrade this page to a more appealing state, as it is one of the ugliest of all the cities in Australia. Clare94 (talk) 11:46, 09 September 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be some sort of hybrid unblock request and content request. Please request an unblocking through the appropriate avenues - none of which is a post on the talk page of an article. Be sure to address the reasons behind your blocking and what you will do to ensure it not happening again. You are currently avoiding a block by participating in sock puppetry, I don't think continuing that is going to do your unblocking request any good. MvjsTalking 02:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Upfront I need to say that I have no knowledge of any of the blocked or other wiki accounts or the reasons for the blocks, etc. which seem to be involved here, so sorry if this has been gone over before, and am still a Wikipup so I am still on the steep part of the learning curve . . .

My question is, "What is the issue with flag icons in the demographics table?". For my edification, "What are the relative merits (or not) of including the flag icons, which should be independent of which wiki account tries to add them?".

Peet Ern (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a lengthy discussion on Sydney's talk page regarding the use of flags in country of origin sections. Basically, it refers to Wikipedia's policy on flags. Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way!. MvjsTalking 02:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome (I am I think 8 months old now, but an am episodic contributor), and thanks for the info / background.

Seems to me that Sydney's talk page just petered out. Perhaps it might benefit from a wrap up?

I amazes how much time some people put into arguing about things in Wikipedia, instead of researching better, referenced content.

Peet Ern (talk) 05:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Locations of facilities and features

In Brisbane#Locations of facilities and features can someone please check for me please. Specifically I am not sure at all that I have the correctly referred to the Albert Bridge, Brisbane and the unnamed bridge, which is center and which is on the right. (I am surprised no one picked up my mistake with the Jack Pesch Bridge, Brisbane - now fixed - I had it down stream instead of up stream).

Also, the 30 facilities and features I have marked are not chosen for any particular reason. I stopped at 30 because that is all the template will currently handle. Sometime over the next couple of months I will be increasing the template to 50. In the meantime, if there are more facilities or features which people think are more or equally interesting or important, and hence should be included, perhaps just list them here, and when I get the template done I can add them in.

Peet Ern (talk) 09:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Possibly?

• Brisbane Grammar School
• Indooroopilly Island
• St. Joseph's College, Gregory Terrace
• Indooroopilly Golf Course
• Ironside Golf Course
• All Hallows
• Rocklea Golf Course
• Rocklea Markets

Peet Ern (talk) 11:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• Brisbane Girls Grammar School
• St. Laurances College
• Sommerville House
• Brisbane State High School
• Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre
• Toohey Forest Park
• Rocklea Produce Markets
• Dutton Park Cemetary

Peet Ern (talk) 10:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeronga Park is another I can see. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I cannot properly remember Yeronga Park! (I think I could guess as I know where Yeronga is, but it is a long time since I lived in Brisbane, . . .) Can you give me an approximate from the top and from the left coordinate please. See Template:Overlay#Brisbane (with grid turned on) for held on this. Peet Ern (talk) 11:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, its 160 down from the top and 280 from the left. - 22:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Population????

There is nothing in this article that gives an accurate population, just that it is larger then 1 million. Could we get this info in here?