Talk:Adelaide city centre

Please update infobox image

1) Adelaide Festival Centre from the north bank of the River Torrens. 8 August 2006

2) Adelaide CBD from above. 27 November 2010

3) Aerial view of the Adelaide city centre looking south-east. 3 August 2005

The current (and tired looking) infobox image is 7 years old and needs an update. Would somebody like to take a few photos and post them so we can vote and decide here? 121.220.222.63 (talk) 05:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

1) The current infobox image is 7 years old and needs an update. - Why? Prior to commencing construction of the absurdly-expensive-footbridge, a photo from the same spot would look very similar (except, perhaps, for the logos on buildings). And it is a very nice, bright, sharp photo with a nice blue sky, and the Torrens Lake actually looks attractive. I don't see any reason to replace it. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The current (and tired looking) infobox image - Why do you say the current image is "tired looking"? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

2) Of the second picture, you said: It shows every aspect of the CBD, and has a better advantage point, because it's an aerial photo, depicting the entire structure of the city centre. - Well that is not quite accurate, is it. a) Yes, an aerial photo gives a different view, but I'm not convinced that is "better". Different, yes. "Better", not necessarily. b) The photo does not show "every aspect of the CBD". And anyway, the article is about the Adelaide City Centre - not the CBD. c) Nor does the photo depict "the entire structure of the city centre" - not even close. All it shows is a portion of the CBD. (This does NOT mean that I don't like the photo. It means that the photo is NOT what you said it is.) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

3) If you want an aerial photo of the Adelaide city centre, the third picture is infinitely better at showing it. Not necessarily an infinitely better photo, but infinitely better at showing the Adelaide city centre. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

/Archive 1

Stuff prior to 2012 archived. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

2012 stuff archived at /Archive 1#Stuff from 2012 Pdfpdf (talk) 12:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Infobox image change

I have been told to discuss my changes to the infobox of this article. In my opinion the current image is dated and hardly shows the CBD, rather its more of a shot of the Torrens and the Festival centre. Its almost a decade old and it really doesn't provide enough detail of the Adelaide city centre, which this article is about. I proposed changing it to a very recent panorama of the city at night. It's updated, it's got great detail and it looks fantastic although thats less of an issue than the previous two. If anyone is totally against this change please provide your reasons. If the current image is left, I fear this article will remain in dull stagnancy for sometime. Ashton 29 (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed image

Thank you for reading WP:BRD. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I like the nighttime image, but I don't think it works well in an infobox, too dark and the detail doesn't really show up very well. But is it a very striking image when viewed larger. YBG (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that it's a very poor choice, especially for an infobox. Composition-wise, the central foreground is hugely dominated by a dark almost featureless rooftop, the skyline shows just a few, relatively uninteresting, boxy office blocks all jammed together, while the human activity (traffic) is reduced to a small area to one side of the photo. As a thumbnail in the infobox, it appears very dark and uninviting - if I'd seen it in any other article, I would never have bothered to click on it to view the larger image. Bahudhara (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Odd reaction to it, most people I've shown it too have found it very striking. "The skyline shows just a few, relatively uninteresting, boxy office blocks all jammed together" That would be the fault of the skyline itself and cluster of buildings, not the photo. It's certainly more appealing than the current image... which is from 2006. Ashton 29 (talk) 08:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Have you read #Please update infobox image above? I ask similar questions and make similar comments regarding this photo - only "similar" because the two photos are significantly different.

Please note that the title and subject of this article is "Adelaide city centre", NOT Adelaide CBD. The CBD is only a part of the city centre.

You have two people saying they don't think this new photo works well in an infobox. I agree with them.

I do not find this new photo more appealing than the other; I disagree that "it is certainly more appealing".

(It's a nice photo - I just don't find it more appealing.)

In my opinion the current image is dated and hardly shows the CBD, rather its more of a shot of the Torrens and the Festival centre. - How is the photo dated, and why does it matter? As the CBD is only a part of the city centre, and is one of the less attractive parts of the city centre, why would we want to put a photo of it in the infobox?

Odd reaction to it ... - Odd response. Further, you seem to be giving some good reasons why it should not appear in the infobox.

Pdfpdf (talk) 11:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a great photo, but it's not appropriate for the infobox. It loses a lot of its impact when it's forced into a smaller size, and it's generally better to avoid night images in the infobox. By all means let's look for an updated version (although, not being very familiar with Adelaide, I don't know if the current one is egregiously out-of-date - just because something's old doesn't mean it's out-of-date if not much has changed), but this isn't the one and the current one is preferable. Frickeg (talk) 12:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

To me one of the most striking things about the Adelaide city centre is the green spaces ... the squares and the parklands. The proposed alternative completely misses this but the current pic nicely captures it, while at the same time having a high rise or two in the background to show that this is after all a capital city. I don't know whether the view has significantly changed since the photo was taken, someone else can speak to that. If someone wants to have a different photo, I'd suggest a photo with one of the squares in the foreground and high rises in the background. YBG (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, but we're not talking about nor are we depicting Adelaide's most striking and appealing aspects. So that dispels my argument for the repleacement too (IMO my choice was more aesthetically appealing than the current one, dark maybe but very urban/well shot). I'll put up with the one that's there now, but in future I'd prefer something that depicts the CBD itself rather than an image of which more than half is a river, an unremarkable entertainment centre and a few trees. Ashton 29 (talk) 09:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of the word "consensus"? Do you know what it means? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits

The fact that every single Australian editor seems to reject any kind of new edit is quite frustrating and makes the purpose of Wikipedia, to evolve and improve, absolutely pointless if I have to justify myself every time I envision a change for an article especially when some editors seem to form teams and go against other people when they open discussions on the talk page. I've seen it happen and I know it's going to happen here. I'll summarise my changes anyway: I moved the gallery to the bottom of the article (shock! horror!) and I added a geography section. If anything in that geography section is inaccurate or unclear, then feel free to change it. But for now, I'd like to be able to change things when they are clearly deserving of it. This article has sadly remained relatively unchanged for a few years. You may go into the article's edit history to see my changes. If you object to them then speak now or forever hold your peace etc etc. Ashton 29 (talk) 09:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of the word "consensus"? Do you know what it means? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't know consensus was utmost when an edit is sensible, clear and justified. You seem to be very rigid when it comes to any kind of change, be it as simple as adding an image to a damn inbox rather than having them clustered in the article as per Ayers House. Ashton 29 (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't know consensus was utmost - Then perhaps you need to refamiliarise yourself with Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and also re-read WP:BRD?

when an edit is sensible, clear and justified - a) You forgot to add "in my opinion" to the end of your sentence. b) Others don't share your opinions.

You seem to be very rigid when it comes to any kind of change - You seem to be very cavalier when it comes to WP:BRD. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Gaining consensus

Here is a summary of the changes made by Ashton 29 and reverted first by Pdfpdf and then restored by A29 and finally reverted again by me (YBG). The original version can be viewed here, here and here; the modified version, here and here.

 Not done Thumbnail map: moved from lead § to geography §

[+] YBG This change seems to just retain the position of the map in the article

[–] PDF Technical reasons related to the browser-page-width being used by the viewer. Placing the picture/map under the infobox keeps the viewed article layout independent of the browser-page-width. Placing the picture/map in the body of the article causes the creation of large amounts of white space at some browser-page-widths.

[–] YBG Persuaded by PDF. I've seen similar problems elsewhere, and am happy to avoid them here. YBG (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done History §: {{expand section}} added

[+] YBG No arguments here

[+] PDF No arguments here

[+] A29 The history section could definitely do with expansion. Currently it only has three sentences.

? Geography §: A 3 paragraph overview added (formerly there was no text)

[+] YBG Add the text then begin editing it if there are improvements to be made.

[?] PDF para.1 is not obviously/directly "supported" by the quoted reference - the "support" is indirect via subpages . The "10 small areas" is something I've never heard of before, and wonder about its origins and official status. It certainly wasn't part of Light's Vision.

[?] PDF para.2 has no supporting reference. Also, it makes dubious statements like: "The east comprises of most of the city's main streets" - What is the definition of "a main street"? What does "most" mean? Clearly Hindley, Currie, Gouger & Grote Streets, and Victoria & Light Squares are significant parts of the city centre, along with parts of Nth Adelaide. I'm also confused by the sentence "The remaining areas are parts of inner city suburbs that form a ring around the central business district, particularly ... Kent Town." The inner city suburbs and Kent Town are not even part of the City of Adelaide, much less the Adelaide city centre.

[?] PDF If these "areas" have some official status, inclusion of, or annotation of, a map would be useful.

[–] YBG On further consideration, while I am strongly in favor of adding such an overview section, I think it would be better to start from scratch rather than start from A29's proposal and begin editing it. My reasons are (1) the inclusion of NA (2) the apparent non-notability of the divisions. But if it weren't for A29's proposal, I wouldn't have even thought about such a section. YBG (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

On further consideration, I rather think it isn't necessary to add a new overview section. The current 'Built environment' section serves as a nice overview, though I can see a number of areas for incremental improvement which I may well BB and make, subject of course to BRD. I am a bit ambivalent about whether to retain this paragraph as it currently is in a 'built environment' section, or to delete the 'built environment' header and let this paragraph serve as an overview for the geography section. Any comments? YBG (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Geography §: (↓)6 pics moved to Gallery § below, (–)1 pic deleted, (+)1 pic added, (=)2 pics unchanged:

(↓)Light's Vision.jpg, Adelaide DougBarber.jpg, ADELAIDE - VICTORIA SQUARE.jpg, Adelaide nth tce2.2.jpg, Adelaide CBD aerial.jpg, Adelaide CBD developments.jpg

(–)Adelaide city.jpg, (+)Australien Adelaide Mt Lofty 2005.jpg, (=)AdelaideSkylineLightsview.jpg, (=)Adelaide central business district at night.jpg

[+] YBG I might move even more pics into the gallery

[+] PDF Moving ALL pictures into a gallery, and only having pictures down the right edge of the page (or in the gallery) is something I've been thinking of doing myself for a couple of years.

[–] PDF I think removal of ANY pictures from the article is a bad idea.

Note: the picture removed is very similar to the one just after it which is added. YBG (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

[+] PDF I think addition of more pictures to the gallery is a good idea.

 Done Built environment §: demoted to be a subsection of Geography

[+] YBG This seems a sensible change

[+] PDF No strong opinion either way.

 Not done Street names §: 1 pic added: (+) King Edward VII.jpg

[–] YBG I'm not sure what Ed⁷ has to do with the street names

[–] PDF a) ditto. b) There are better pictures of that statue available, including ones that are not featuring the back of his head. c) There are many pictures available of many statues in Adelaide, why this one?

[+] A29 But why not this statue? What makes it less notable than any of the other statues in the city? It's really just to give a sense (or illustration) of culture within the CBD and along North Terrace.

It may be notable and as good as other statues, but does it have anything to do with this section? YBG (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

(as YBG implies, comments b) & c) are off topic. Pdfpdf (talk) 06:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC))

[~] YBG Are there any statues of someone on the Street Naming Commission? What about the one guy (who was it?) who didn't get a street? YBG (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Flippant/facetious reply: If he didn't get a street named after him, why on earth would he get a statue? ;-)

More useful reply: No, I don't think so. The overlapping set of statues and street names is very small. The only ones I can think of are: Vicki (Sq & statue in the Sq), Flinders (St & statue on Nth Tce) and Light (Sq & statue on Montiafore Hill). However, I may have missed someone. (Mea Culpa) Pdfpdf (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Responding in kind: Maybe a blank piece of granite, so that it could be a statue of anyone the reader wanted?

(Well yes, but that's more a late 20th Century thing (rather than mid 19th Century), isn't it? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC))

I was just grasping for a picture that would actually have something to do with the street names. Maybe a picture of a street sign -- maybe even an old one of Hanson or Brown, if we could find one -- the surprise might pull someone in to read. Just a thought.YBG (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

[=] After looking at A29's comment below, I believe we have reached a consensus not to add this pic to this section. This says nothing ab out adding E7 to the gallery below or adding a different pic to this section. Anyone inclined to either is welcome to BB or discuss first. YBG (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

 Deferred Demographics §: New section added with 2 paragraphs

[+] YBG Add the section then begin editing it if there are improvements to be made

[?] PDF This section is a useful addition, but it contains errors. (e.g. The "Estimated Resident Population" of 22,200 was for 2013, not 2014.) Also the qualifications data appears on a different web page which is not cited. Also, there is no mention that this is mostly 2011 data.

[~] PDF This section would be a useful addition if the data was available. (The data source Ashton 29 has used is for the whole of the City of Adelaide. i.e. It includes North Adelaide.) More comments below.

[–] YBG Per PDF's comments below, I think it would be best to start afresh rather than start from this proposal. But again, many thanks for A29's initiative which provoked this discussion. YBG (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

[=] Per PDF comment below in #Comments on Demographics below, I suggest we close this one as 'deferred' until rewritten with ABS 2011 data or 2016 census data. YBG (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Gallery §: New section added with 6 pics

[+] YBG A good thing to have pics at the bottom

[+] PDF ditto.

I suggest that the way to reach consensus is for each of us (and any others who wish to chime in) to indicate our opinion on each of the changes above. YBG (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've added my comments. Others can add theirs too. No need to add ~~~~ on each line above provided you add a line here with your signature. We should all reserve the right to change our opinion if we are persuated. In that case, strike out the original opinion and add the new one below the others. YBG (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

And I've added mine, too. (Thanks YBG). Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reasonable contributions to my changes. It's nice to know that editors can still manage to look beyond their inflexible opinions and see things from a broader perspective. The Edward VII image probably isn't best located in the Street Names section, rather the History section or even the gallery, you're right. Ashton 29 (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Ashton 29 - You seem to have ignored my edit comment: "I rather like some (not all) of the changes you have made, but per WP:BRD, I suggest discussing them on the talk page is the best way forward." I don't appreciate your not-quite-personal-attacks which quite inaccurately categorise editors who do not appreciate your unwillingness to discuss things and reach consensus. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, the panoramas do suffer in a gallery section. I don't mind where you place them as long as it's not in the gallery, where the quality/clarity is compromised.Ashton 29 (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Consensus seems to have been reached on several items. If you disagree, please feel free to change my assessments. YBG (talk) 07:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

If you disagree ... - (From my POV), "So far, so good". Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments on panorama photographs appearing in a <gallery>

As discussed above, I've moved the photos into a <gallery> in a "Gallery" section at the bottom of the article. In my opinion, the panoramas look horrible. How about we restore them to 500px format and place them after the <gallery>, but still within the "Gallery" section? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, the panoramas do suffer in a gallery section. I don't mind where you place them as long as it's not in the gallery, where the quality/clarity is compromised.Ashton 29 (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments on Demographics

If Ashton 29 is in the mood to rewrite the section using ABS 2011 census data, I expect I would be unlikely to object. If he isn't, I expect I'll probably add such a section when the 2016 census data becomes available. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

10gbps internet for the CBD/North Adelaide

Super high-speed internet would be available across the CBD under plans to be investigated by Adelaide City Council. A special optic cable network would provide web speeds of up to 10gigabites a second, Lord Mayor Martin Haese says. - Mayor's call for a special inquiry was unanimously backed by councillors. A staff report is due to be completed by September before any formal decision is made. InDaily. The Advertiser. Timeshift (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

City acres

In the various depictions of Lights layout of Adelaide, the "City Acres" appear to be congruent. If so, does anyone know what were their dimensions? By crude scaling, each street frontage appears to be around 200 ft and the depth somewhat greater. If they were truly an acre, ie. 43,560 sq.ft. these dimensions ought to lie within the range 181.5 x 240 ft. and 200 x 217.8 ft. Doug butler (talk) 03:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Guessing they were meant to be 70x70 yards (210x210 ft or 1.01 acres). This based on using the PLB (http://maps.sa.gov.au/plb/) measuring tool on the 2 city acres between Bartels Road and Flinders Street. Donama (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Transport

There is no information on transport.

It's covered in Adelaide#Transport and Transport in Adelaide. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 13:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)