Talk:Adelaide city centre/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Requested Move[edit]

I've suggested this move because Adelaide, as a suburb, has a clearly defined boundary (the outer boundary of the park lands, south of the Torrens River), whilst Adelaide city centre is commonly referred to as meaning the suburb Adelaide with a postcode of 5000, or the central business district within that suburb, around King William Street, etc. Addresses along the residential fringe (eg Hutt Street and South Terrace) or in the parklands themselves are "Adelaide 5000" but not generally considered as part of the city centre. --AtD (talk) 07:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: In principle, I'm not averse to the proposal, but I'm confused.
There are a number of options, but I'm not quite sure: 1) which option you are suggesting; 2) what all the options/alternatives are; and most importantly, 3) what you want to achieve. Some of the options are: Adelaide city centre; Adelaide CBD; and Adelaide (suburb). One of the other options might be "Adelaide 5000" (which, by-the-way, would not get my support.) for which I can see some merit, but it doesn't clarify the issue of whether the Parklands are included or not, (or whether you are wanting to include the Parklands, or not).
Note also that the Adelaide University's postcode is 5005, but I'm not sure if this clarifies or confuses the matter. So:
Question: I'm not sure what you want to achieve. Can you clarify the issues I've mentioned above please? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm suggesting "Adelaide (suburb)" as indicated in the template box I've placed on the top of this talk page. Neither "Adelaide city centre" nor "Adelaide CBD" are defined as clearly as Adelaide (suburb) as it doesn't have an agreed border - is Adelaide University part of the CBD? Are the residential apartment complexes around East Terrace and Rundle Street part of the business district? What about the south eastern area of the 'grid' such as around Hutt Street and Hurtle Square? This area is entirely semi-detached houses, townhouses and small apartment blocks. It is certainly not part of the business district nor the city centre.
The residential areas of the suburb of Adelaide currently have no article that covers them. I wish to broaden the scope of this article so to include these areas. (A new article is possible but then there'd be two very small stubs with significant overlaps). --AtD (talk) 01:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support: I think that broadening the scope is a very good idea! Pdfpdf (talk) 12:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC) (Note, however, that the page itself will need to be modified somewhat to reflect this broadened scope. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC) )
Done. --AtD (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

There was already significant discussion on this point. In particular there was an attempt to harmonise the article names of the CBD in all the major cities of Australia. NB: I don't think it makes any sense to call a CBD a suburb. The word suburb by definition means it's not in the centre. More to come... Donama (talk) 03:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Question: Where and when? This page doesn't seem to have any obvious archives. Can someone provide a link to previous discussions on the matter? Thanks in advance. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
This is all I can find for now: Talk:Melbourne/Archive_3#Melbourne_the_Suburb_vs_.22Melbourne_the_metropolis.22_vs_.22City_of_Melbourne.22 In the meantime I am reverting this. Propose the name change formally (see WP:Rename) so it goes through a more thorough discussion if you like. Donama (talk) 03:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Adelaide the suburb and the Adelaide CBD are not the same thing. Adelaide is an exception to the rule of other state capitals. In Sydney or Melbourne, the CBD is bigger than the suburb. In Adelaide, the suburb is clearly bigger than the CBD. Calling Hutt Street and East Terrace part of the CBD is a clear contradiction, they are suburban areas of semi-detached and medium density dwellings, which is sub-urban. Whilst I agree that calling the CBD (around North Terrace and King William Street) suburban isn't true to the term, they are within the Adelaide suburb. Ideally there should be separate articles for Adelaide city centre and Adelaide (suburb) but the overlap between these would be so great (relative to their current lack of content) that there'd be no point. A redirect fro the lesser (CBD) to the greater (suburb) should suffice until the articles are of significant length and depth.
Please define (with references) where the Adelaide city centre ends and the suburban residential area of the city square mile begins. --AtD (talk) 06:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Um, Adelaide is hardly unique in this respect. Perth 6000 is a VERY strange suburb which includes areas nearly 4km from the centre marker which are not by any stretch CBD, yet excludes closer areas which are arguably part of the city block. Melbourne has an entire section south of the Yarra River along St Kilda Road including the Domain and Botanic Gardens. I'd favour the name "Adelaide city centre" for consistency with Melbourne, it's something we really need to consider on a case by case basis though. Orderinchaos 23:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Donama. "Adelaide" is not a suburb - it is the centre. It would be good to stimulate a wider discussion than this before moving the page (I appear to only be the fourth person to contribute). References should be required for moving the page just as much as for moving it back. Whether you want to call it "locality", "suburb", "CBD" or something else, there is a gazetted boundary for it,[1][2] and it's the place that green road signs refer to as "CITY" (not "Adelaide" once you get inside the circle line bus route). Melbourne has a similarly-named Melbourne city centre article. I'd prefer to leave this article about the "square mile" as Adelaide city centre, and write it to cover retail (which is actually unusual in the world scheme of things), commercial and residential. --Scott Davis Talk 13:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Scott, I'm not trying to be perverse, but. You say there is a gazetted boundary for it,[3][4], but I must be missing something. I can't seem to find where either of those two sites define the boundaries. Could I bother you to point out the boundary definitions please? Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please note that there has already been a protracted debate on this very issue for which the consensus settled in favour of "X city centre". In addition to the link Donama provided above, please refer to to this debate. I'm not, of course, suggesting that the issue can't be revisited, but we should be very wary of meddling about with what amounts to a convention.

As for the the contention that "Adelaide city centre" and "Adelaide central business district" are synonymous terms, I disagree. Besides, one does not cross the parklands from the east or south and not think they've arrived in the city. This article was always intended to cover the entire Square Mile (solely residential areas included), so broadening of scope was not required.

For the record, I remain opposed to the (mis)use of the word "suburb" in the article title, and again put forward the compromise of "South Adelaide". --cj | talk 13:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)
What you say sounds reasonable, but I disgree.
"As for the the contention that "Adelaide city centre" and "Adelaide central business district" are synonymous terms, I disagree." - Whether you agree or not would depend highly on what you define "Adelaide city centre" to be. To me, the major issue seems to result from the fact that "Adelaide city centre" is not defined. For example, I could argue that "Adelaide city centre" was Queen Victoria's Statue, the GPO, Victoria Square, the square mile, and/or several other things.
"Besides, one does not cross the parklands from the east or south and not think they've arrived in the city." - Agreed, but not the city centre.
"This article was always intended to cover the entire Square Mile (solely residential areas included)" - Is that so? How would a newcomer know that? How would a newcomer determine that? Unless it's actually stated somewhere obvious, I don't find that comment particularly useful.
"For the record, I remain opposed to the (mis)use of the word "suburb" in the article title" - I think I've missed something. How is it mis-used?
"and again put forward the compromise of "South Adelaide"." - How is that a compromise? With what is it a compromise? Personally, I think that would be the worst possible option; a lot of places could be referred to as "south adelaide", but the square mile isn't one of them!
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I have posted invitations to comment at AWNB and Wikiproject Adelaide to get a wider range of discussion. --Scott Davis Talk 14:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


Scott has provided a definition, with supporting references, to the boundaries of "Adelaide". May we change the text in the article to be consistent with that definition? Pdfpdf (talk) 09:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

An easier definition would be that which a planner at the City of Adelaide gave me by email 5 days ago - that is, "all sections of the City of Adelaide south of the centre line of the River Torrens" (while North Adelaide was defined exactly the same way but substituting "north" for "south".) Orderinchaos 09:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is easier, but not useful. What does "all sections of the City of Adelaide" mean? i.e. What is the definition of and more importantly, the boundaries of, "all sections of the City of Adelaide"? It is entirely possible that the definition is identical to the one Scott has provided. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
It's somewhat more intelligible to someone who doesn't have an encyclopaedic knowledge of Adelaide streets. Despite having been there a few times myself, most of those descriptors mean nothing to me without a street directory. It also makes for reducing redundancy - you can define the boundaries in the City of Adelaide article then give a descriptive within this one. BTW the definition *is* the same - that's entirely the point. Orderinchaos 10:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but your answer makes no sense to me. Something that doesn't mean anything and isn't defined isn't "more intelligible" - it is either "equally obscure" or "more obscure".
I asked: "What does "all sections of the City of Adelaide" mean?" - Your response seems to completely avoid answering that question. Until you do answer that question, I really have little idea what you are talking about.
I am particularly confused by "BTW the definition *is* the same - that's entirely the point." - What is entirely which point? If you are saying that the definition Scott has supplied is the correct definition, then I have no idea what you are on about - Scott's definition is "definitive"; what you are saying uses less words, but can mean anything, and hence tells me nothing. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Hence, I seem to be back at square 1:
Scott has provided a definition, with supporting references, to the boundaries of "Adelaide". May we change the text in the article to be consistent with that definition? Pdfpdf (talk) 09:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It is definitive, but roadgeekish. It makes no sense to anyone who does not have an incredibly good knowledge of the inner streets of Adelaide or who is not following along in a street directory at the same time (and having worked with gazettals and the like I can tell you if you don't know the place, that can be very frustrating) Note that Scott provided the definition to define it for us from a reliable source, I doubt he intended it to be used in full in the article, or he would have added it. We write for our readers. We have an article City of Adelaide which can define the City. We then put a definition in this one saying it's the bit south of the Torrens, and a bit in North Adelaide saying it's the bit north of the Torrens. That way if the City of Adelaide article changes we don't have to change three at the same time (read up on normalisation and redundancy, it's useful background for this.) If we ever want this to get to GA or FA, we really have to start thinking about article prose and usefulness to readers. Orderinchaos 13:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
a) You still are avoiding every question I ask.
b) Please stop "talking" to me in a condescending manner and treating me like I'm in kindergarten. I have at least 20 years more experience than you in almost all of the fields you are talking about. Also, since when did you become a member of "we", and I lost my membership? Who is we? Surely Wikipedia has these articles, not "we"?
c) "We write for our readers." - And I don't? As I think you are completely unaware of anything I've written, I would prefer you keep you uninformed opinions to yourself.
c) I'm uninterested and unimpressed about geekishness. I want an answer to the question, not fancy words that tell me nothing.
d) "It makes no sense to anyone ... " is simply your opinion. I, and many others, have different opinions.
e) Not wishing to sound too harsh, but I'm not very interested in your opinion of Scott's opinion. I'm more interested in Scott's opinion of Scott's opinion.
f) "We have an article ... " - Perhaps "we" do, but it isn't doing the job.
g) "(read up on normalisation and redundancy, it's useful background for this.)" - I imagine that I have written more about Database normalisation and redundancy than you have ever read about it.
h) If "we" ever want this to get to GA or FA, it will be essential to have unambiguously defined what "we" are talking about - waffly words and vague generalisations won't get through the first pass.
Not withstanding my obvious irritation with your uniformed assumptions and opinions, I think that you do make a very good suggestion with your (modified by me) statement:
There is an article City of Adelaide which can define the City. Similarly for the North Adelaide article. That way if the City of Adelaide article changes it may not be necessary to change all three articles.
However, that still doesn't address the problem of, "What is the definition of the boundary of the city centre?". If the city centre is the same as the City of Adelaide, why does WP need two articles? If it is not the same, then boundary still needs to be defined in the city centre article.
This isn't rocket science. It is unclear to me why it is necessary to have such a long and unproductive conversation to address a seemingly simple and straightforward issue. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, I'm sorry that you seem to have taken offence from my use of "we", which did consciously include you, and every other Wikipedian. We edit as a community effort, that's the whole point of being here. I apologise if you did not believe I was including you.
Likewise I did not intend to insult your intelligence, I had no idea as to whether you knew anything about the topic and it's kind of rude to go over people's heads, it looks like obfuscation, so I am careful to explain what I mean to an "average community member" level - also, it's not just you reading, there may be others who do not understand, etc. I really don't like your tone in the above, I think you're taking this very personally for some reason and personal attacks are never a good way to resolve these sorts of disputes (you know absolutely nothing about the offline me, likewise I know absolutely nothing about the offline you, you might look silly if you start making assumptions about my life achievements/activities or abilities as I would if I did about you). The City of Adelaide, by the way, is a local government area containing the Adelaide city centre and the separate suburb (LOCB) of North Adelaide. Hence the need for three articles. From a FA/GA point of view, I managed to put together one of the only three FAs for a suburb on WP:AUS and it's been credited as a model to work from by other editors. I work (as do various others who have contributed to this discussion, including no doubt yourself) in a lot of areas where geekiness is quite possible to indulge in but has to be avoided as it is actually quite insulting to our readers to bombard them with meaningless information which does not help them in any way. If the tables were turned and I was writing about Perth and you hit a definition that looks like one of those 2-column things from the Government Gazette, you'd probably be screaming on the talk page to change it, and with good reason.
As a final thing, I have a minor visual impairment and your odd indenting makes it very hard for me to read/follow what you're saying (I had to cut/paste it into Notepad to get the gist of your argument). As a courtesy could you please maintain one consistent indent when making replies? Thanks. Orderinchaos 14:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Last thing first: Sorry if my indenting has been odd; I hadn't really been paying much attention to it. Henceforth I will endeavour to be more consistent and predictable. My apologies.
Thank you for explaining your rationale. I'm not sure I understand all of what you are saying, but I get the impression that you weren't intending to be as hostile as you seemed to be, and I agree with those bits of what you say that I do understand. And yes, I imagine that you may not have liked my tone; I think I made it quite clear that I didn't like your tone.
Trying to get back on topic, yes, I know that the LGA consists of Adelaide and North Adelaide, and hence that's why there are three articles. But from these three articles, the only defined boundary is the River Torrens. From the articles, it is not clear whether and when the parklands are included, and when they are not. The name "Adelaide city centre" seems to imply the exclusion of the parklands and the residential areas, whereas the definitions of the "Adelaide" and "North Adelaide" that together make up the LGA of "Adelaide" do include the parklands and the residential areas. Hence, the city centre article needs to clearly define what the city centre includes. Currently neither it, nor the LGA article, clearly define what the boundaries are. I would be surprised if the only way to do this unambiguously was to be "geeky".
As I said previously: It is unclear to me why it is necessary to have such a long and unproductive conversation to address a seemingly simple and straightforward issue. What do you think of the idea of archiving this section and starting again? Pdfpdf (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with archiving - until the last couple of messages I think we've been unclear about what points the other is trying to establish and we're finally getting to a point where that's not an issue. To me personally, at least two reliable sources, the Atlas of South Australia and the 1:50000 map series (the URBN gazettal Scott cited contains the number - 6628 3), can be cited to include the parklands as part of the city centre (which we call such in the complete absence of a gazettal for the locality, which seems to be primarily a postal locality), and independently, the Council of the City of Adelaide has agreed, although we can't cite them as they're not a printed source. The names of the roads, especially given the number of them and the fact most of them are way too minor to ever have articles (except Greenhill Road and Port Road), are fairly unimportant as they are merely the outer boundaries of the parklands anyway, and look like cruft in article space. Imagine being someone who's in some European country and has a relatively good standard of English trying to read this article, is a long list of roads going to just sound like somebody's hobby or is it going to sound like the contents of a professional, well-written article? I suppose if one were to distill my point down, the above would be it. Orderinchaos 15:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

"Adelaide city centre"?[edit]

What is the definition of "Adelaide city centre"? (I haven't been able to find a definition.) Pdfpdf (talk) 00:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Replying also to your question embedded in the section above, I didn't say those references defined the boundary, only that they said there is a defined boundary. The Atlas of South Australia does appear to define Adelaide as the area inside of Centre line of the Torrens, Port Road, James Congdon Drive, Henley Beach Road, the boundary between parkland and railways at Mile End, Greenhill Road, Fullarton Road, Dequetteville Terrace, Hackney Road.[5] (zoom in, turn on "Suburbs", refresh map) --Scott Davis Talk 14:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
It is interesting that Parramatta, New South Wales and Chatswood, New South Wales are called suburbs yet somehow Adelaide is not, even though these two have higher populations in a smaller area with as many, if not more, high-rise offices and apartments. --AtD (talk) 06:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Move performed[edit]

I've moved the article back to Adelaide city centre, as it's pretty clear that that's where it should be based both on the above discussion and the fact that the Gazetteer of Australia does not recognise Adelaide as a suburb under the conventions accepted by the project (listed as SUB or LOCB). Note that this latter technical point differs from almost all other capital city CBDs in Australia. Orderinchaos 06:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You leave me speechless. Pdfpdf (talk) 07:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I would strongly disagree that, from the discussion above, anything is "pretty clear". Pdfpdf (talk) 08:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Scott, cj, myself and Donama commented in favour of retaining the status quo. AtD (who moved it after having placed a RM, i.e. without allowing a neutral person to resolve it) and yourself are the only people who have spoken in favour of the change. This seems a pretty odd basis on which to back up the original IAR move. On Wikipedia we do things on the concurrence of independent reliable sources without resorting to original research. The official sources say that Adelaide is not a suburb, but does have a defined locality boundary. Incidentally I am from Perth and have no stake in the matter, but I simply believe things should be correct. Orderinchaos 08:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I'm not altogether sure how what you are saying is relevant. It seems to me that some of the facts are: the discussion had not been completed; four against and two for is not consensus; nothing in the above discussion is "pretty clear".
As I said on your talk page: "Please continue the discussion on the talk page - not prematurely terminate it." Pdfpdf (talk) 08:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Two for and four against is not consensus to move, I agree. That's why I corrected the improper move. The situation as it stood was a (likely unintentional) violation of WP:GAME - we do not move the goalposts before the debate even starts then try to write the rules around the new situation.
Oh, and on speechlessness, that was pretty much my reaction to the extremely brazen move 40 hours after posting a requested move notice (move) at a point when only one other person - yourself - had supported and nobody else had commented. [6] This led to the premature conclusion of the RM. [7] I'd appreciate if you conducted the same scrutiny on those you support as those you oppose. Orderinchaos 09:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Again, I am not disagreeing with what you say, but I'm not altogether sure how what you are saying is relevant. I have stated my point of view. I see no point in repeating it. You're welcome to have the last word if you want it. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
In essence, you were accusing me of moving without consensus. I pointed out that the article 10 days ago and for a long time prior had been at this location, and somebody else moved without consensus or discussion - my move only restored the status quo. That is all. Orderinchaos 10:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Hmmmm. I said: I have stated my point of view. I see no point in repeating it. Apparently there is a need for me to repeat myself.
No, I'm sorry, but on this page I have not accused you of moving without concensus, either in essence or in any other manner. In fact, I haven't "accused" you of anything.
I have pointed out that you closed an open discussion, and that contrary to your original statement, there was no consensus. You subsequently stated that "Two for and four against is not consensus to move, I agree." (my emphasis)
I have quite deliberately made no comment about the move; I have only made comment about the discussion.
Regarding the move, for the third time I will say: I am not disagreeing with what you say
I hope that clears things up? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
It does. Thank you. Your "you have me speechless" and subsequent points had led me to believe it was my reverse of the move, not my closure of the requested move discussion, which you were addressing. Also on my talk page, you began with, "Would you kindly move this back where it was please" (ignoring the ironic point that I actually *had*), which suggested to me that the move was the primary issue. Incidentally, it is normal to close discussions after several days of activity when it is clear all interested parties have expressed a view. The section had not been edited for over five days, which is about the time most AfDs run, and not far off the length of time it takes to decide an RfA. Orderinchaos 14:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
If five days is a standard period, then I'd better inform you that I'm about to disappear for 7 days, and won't be contributing to any discussions during that period. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
For the record, the Australian Bureau of Statistics refers to Adelaide as a suburb: [8] (Hopefully that link works). I disagree with this move. If anyone has any referenced sources that state Adelaide is not a suburb, please post. Otherwise I'm opening another request to move. --AtD (talk) 06:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
The ABS's classification system has nothing to do with what it actually is - that's just the ABS's internal system. If we were to go with that, no regional city would have had any suburbs until 2006 (as they didn't roll out any of the SSCs outside capital cities until then), and areas like this or WA's Gibson Desert would be called "suburbs". All suburbs (eg North Adelaide, Enfield, even tiny Fitzroy) are gazetted on the Gazetteer of Australia as suburbs (SUB), or in some places (eg Hahndorf, Woodside) as "bounded localities" (LOCB). Ages ago and many disputes ago we agreed to use this, the *ultimate* source of reliable information, as the basis on which to proceed. Now show me one thing on this list which says Adelaide is a SUB or a LOCB. Orderinchaos 08:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh and opening a move request when the last one failed only days ago with no consensus and not only a majority but decent arguments against it, would be seen as disruptive. Orderinchaos 08:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Hmmmm. I go on holiday and the conversation stops. Interesting. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)



I never thought i'd be arguing from this angle, but isn't/wasn't this article too politics-focused? I just moved the information about the city centre/CBD above the political section. The level of detail provided especially in the tables, I think, is too big for such a small page. It would go well in a large article... but in this article it looks severely imbalanced and bordering on WP:NPOV and WP:OR. In reality, how much of it really needs to be kept? At the very least, it's missing the 2010 fed/state results which have apparently been calculated by adding the city centre booths... Timeshift (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I agree with your rearrangement, but otherwise (personally) I don't have a strong opinion. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Well it does seem like a lot of detail, compared to other sections but it's still interesting and valid for the article. I'd prefer to keep it and put more effort into fleshing out other sections of the article. We should have more on demographics and city-centre specific culture. Could grab parts from main Adelaide article where it is only treated in summary form there. Donama (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
To me, that sounds like a good plan. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Stuff from 2012[edit]


North Terrace 4-lane
Rundle Street 2-lane
Grenfell Street 4-lane
Pirie Street 2-lane
Flinders Street 4-lane
Wakefield Street 6-lane
Angas Street 4-lane "angas and gouger are 2 lanes in most parts"
Carrington Street 2-lane
Halifax Street 4-lane "halifax and sturt are 2 lanes"
Gilles Street 2-lane
South Terrace 4-lane

get rid of lane information; there are too many exceptions; halifax and sturt are 2 lanes; angas and gouger are 2 lanes in most parts - It doesn't look like "too many exceptions" to me. Am I missing something? Maybe "number of lanes" isn't the best description? Maybe "wide" and "narrow" is better? (I don't know, but I'm open to suggestions.)

Then there's the issue of the original "Light's Vision" design vs the realities of the 21st century.

I don't think throwing the baby out with the bathwater is the best solution. Your thoughts? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me the best way would be to make a note of how many feet wide each street was in Light's vision. That would eliminate any problem with exceptions. I'd do it myself, but I don't have access to the information. YBG (talk) 06:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Did you notice my addition? Pdfpdf (talk) 08:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that using the original widths of the road reserves would reduce ambiguity. Pdfpdf (talk) 08:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed your edit -- it is what sparked my comment. The best thing would be to include what Light actually specified in his plans -- in feet or in lanes, but whatever he actually had. YBG (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. (i.e. That sounds reasonable to me.) Pdfpdf (talk)

See my change. Is still misleading to casual readers who might actually want to use this information for navigation purposes though. Donama (talk)

a) Donama, I like your change.
b) Who would use wikipedia "for navigation purposes"?
c) Yes, I agree with both of you that we do not yet have the optimum solution.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone have access to a copy of Light's plan? This is the best I can do. I suspect that measuring road width in 'lanes' is a recent concept. On a surveyor's maps and plans, road width would be specified in feet, so you'd have to have access not only to the maps but some narative description to know if Light had a certain number of traffic lanes in mind. YBG (talk) 07:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm a bit tied up this week. Hopefully I can respond on the weekend. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

2014: "Politics" and "Street layout"[edit]

Politics section[edit]

Nobody updates these anymore. We're two elections out of date for both state and federal on this and many other articles. Should we just remove them? We don't even have 2PP figures! Timeshift (talk) 05:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps replace them with links to the various pages that DO contain the relevant and up-to-date information? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
So you're suggesting to remove the tables and replace with what? It's all good to reference something but what would we be referencing? Timeshift (talk) 01:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Which bit of "replace them with links to the various pages that DO contain the relevant and up-to-date information" is not clear to you? I'm happy to try to explain it to you if you ask specific questions.
And no, I'm not suggesting referencing anything; I'm suggesting we might wish to "replace them with links to the various pages that DO contain the relevant and up-to-date information". Pdfpdf (talk) 07:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
What links to what pages? We don't have booth-based results. Timeshift (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

As you are the self-appointed expert who knows everything about these matters, I have assumed that you know all the answers. If you are saying that there are no such pages, I'll take your word for it. Pdfpdf (talk) 07:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── So start again:

Nobody updates these anymore. We're two elections out of date for both state and federal on this and many other articles. Should we just remove them? We don't even have 2PP figures! Timeshift (talk) 05:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think they should be removed; they provide a useful historical record. Pdfpdf (talk) 07:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

So we're going to have 1993-2007 results but nothing since? Ok. But looks terrible, not to mention biased as they stop at the Labor high water mark. I've mentioned it here. At least I can't say I didn't try. Timeshift (talk) 07:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

So far, two have commented here and neither believe the result tables should be in this article. Do you care to comment there? I would hope you contribute rather than wait until I remove it after the discussion there saying no consensus. Timeshift (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Your statement "neither believe the result tables should be in this article" is false. Perhaps you should reread the comments? Pdfpdf (talk) 06:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
First comment: Yeah, I'm not convinced these are necessary. Second comment: I do absolutely agree that conflating booths is WP:OR and something that we shouldn't be doing. Timeshift (talk) 08:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Huh? (Did you mean to put this comment on the other talk page?) Pdfpdf (talk) 09:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Sigh. Thats the two comments supporting removal from this article. Timeshift (talk) 10:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Taking two unexplained comments out of context from another discussion and plonking them on this page is, at best, "not useful", and adds nothing to the discussion. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Neither believe the result tables should be in this article. Timeshift (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Is there some sort of an echo going on here?

Your statement "neither believe the result tables should be in this article" is false. Perhaps you should reread the comments? Pdfpdf (talk) 06:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Repeating a false statement does not make it any less false than it was the first time you made it. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Nothing you have stated on this page is anything other than your opinion, some of which is very easily demonstrated to be based on false information. You have provided NO actual reason for removal other than WP:I just don't like it.

Further, you have initiated a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_politics#Electoral_results_smaller_than_seat-level.
ALL of my responses to your statements appear there. I see no point in further postings on this page as the conversation has been transferred to the abovementioned page. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

You falsely claimed 'Your statement "neither believe the result tables should be in this article" is false. Perhaps you should reread the comments?' which I corrected. Timeshift (talk) 01:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Well I gave it more than enough time. Added outdated|section tag. And brought it back up here. Timeshift (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Pdfpdf is removing the outdated tag without any talkpage contribution, and appears to be ignoring the fact that everyone but him either agrees it should be removed from all articles, or at least should be removed from Adelaide City Centre as the combining of booths is WP:OR. Timeshift (talk) 02:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

My god you're a baby Timeshift. Actually no, you're a 3 year old throwing a tantrum.
Please stop the bullshit - you are COMPLETELY and falsely misrepresenting what I've said. (Yes, I'm calling you a liar.)
My internet connection is playing up - it's taken me 20 minutes to get to this point; and I've no idea how much longer it will take before I will see if my posting is saved.
You've waited until now. Please wait a few days longer until I can get Optus to pull their finger out. (Yes, I'm an optimist.)
I'll be back as soon as Optus let me, or until I get set up with a new ISP. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow! The outdated election tables are gone! And Pdfpdf seems ok with it! What changed?! Timeshift (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Street layout[edit]

There are two versions of the list of street names:

The map-like version has been improved somewhat, but it seems to me to be a difficult amalgam of a table of information and a map: it isn't as graphically pretty as a map should be and the information isn't as clearly presented as a table should be. I made the change in hopes of making the information clearer, but without removing any information other than the map-like graphical presentation.

Ideally, the table could be accompanied with a picture that was actually a map rather than a table. IHMO, such a map should not include all of the alleyways and minor streets, but only the six N-S streets, the 11 E-W streets and street pairs and the 5 squares and the surrounding parklands. The streets that transverse the parklands should also be shown, but I think it would be better not to actually show their names. The colors should be pink and green, coordinated with the graphic shown earlier in the article.

That is my ideal state. Until such a time as we have the picture, I'd prefer to have the smaller table than the larger map-like version. But if others prefer the map-like version, I won't object.

Oh, and by the way, if we stay with the map-like version, we should change the paragraph immediately before it (Travelling south from North Terrace, the street pairs are:), as the street pairs generally tend to get lost in the sensory overload of the map-like version.

And, a special shout-out of thanks to Pdfpdf for linking to WP:BRD in his edit summary. Cheers! YBG (talk) 03:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

YBG: Thanks for the above. Quite a bit of food for thought there - so I'll have a think, with the plan to reply on the weekend. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Looking forward to it! YBG (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
YBG: I'm finding that [thinking] is a lot more effort than expressing my opinion. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Pdfpdf: Yea, I know. By the way, your last edit seems to have messed stuff up. If I don't see a corrected version in a bit, I'm going to revert that one and then make some changes from there. YBG (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
YBG: last edit seems to have messed stuff up. - It appears OK on my screen. What problems are you having/seeing? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Pdfpdf: Everything seems a bit unbalanced; column widths I'd expect to be the same or similar are widely different. The first Grenfell Street is about twice the width of the second one. I'm not sure how to fix it easily starting from your latest version, but I think I could make a big improvement by tweaking your next-to-last version. If I'd revert and then edit from there, I think you'll agree it is a significant improvement. I expect revert+redit would take me less than 5 minutes. YBG (talk) 14:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────As I said, it appears OK on my screen. As I have NO faith in Microsoft and IE, I have little doubt you are seeing something different to me.

I'm going to bed. Do what you feel is best - if I don't like it, I will tell you! ;-) Till the morrow, Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, will do! YBG (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Pdfpdf: I just opened up IE and yes, it does look fine. I've done all my WP editing in Chrome for months now and it is the only browser I use at home. I still use IE at work.
Here's my general plan:
(1) Revert your latest edit
(2) Make one edit that I think will show significant improvement and unlikely to be controversial
(3) Make additional improvements in several edits, gradually becoming bolder and bolder.
I'll try to remember to check IE after each edit to make sure it looks OK on both browsers. When you get around to looking at it tomorrow, if it turns out you don't like the final result, I suggest you look back at my previous versions and see if one of them seems better to you. Then we can either discuss it or you can revert to the most recent version you like and start editing from there. YBG (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Any idea of the design widths of East & West Terrace, King William, Morphett and Pulteney? At present, the latter two have disappeared from the diagram, but I think I might find a way to get them back in, though I'm not sure I can do it without introducing too much clutter. YBG (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


I'm weighing in to the discussion without reviewing the various versions of the article, just the one I can see now by user:YBG. The grid version I am looking at has no reference to Hutt Street or Frome Street, despite both being in the navbox at the bottom. The article also doesn't mention the extra residential block on the southeast. I'm still trying to remember where I have read about that. Do we have a reference that the streets were designed to be 2, 4, and 6 lanes, rather than designed to be particular widths, which happen to accommodate those numbers of lanes at present (and could be different numbers with different widths and arrangements of footpaths, bike lanes, parking, tram reserves etc)? --Scott Davis Talk 09:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Re widths: This has been discussed before. What did Col. Light actually specify? Until we know that, I think it is fine to leave the {{cn}} info in the article as it at least gets at the point that some were designed to be wider and some narrower.
  • Re Hutt & Frome: I thought I had seen this discussed before, but I can't find it now. Seems to me someone asked about their absence and someone else said more-or-less that it seemed to be too hard to include. That is one of the reasons I think the best solution would be to reduce the information presented textually/tabularly and include a map that showed all 4 perimeter terraces, 9 E-W pairs that divide the city into 110s, the 3 N-S streets that divide the city into 14s, and then the oddballs Hutt and Frome, but none of the detail of the multitudinous lanes and alleys. Such a map could show widths without getting into the details of whether it should be specified in lanes or feet (but of course, not in meters). As to the extra blocks in the SE. I've always wondered about that. Were they in Light's original plan? Did someone get paid off to allow encroachment on the parklands? Or maybe someone was really farsighted and realized the advantage of providing a more interesting auto race route? Whatever the reason, I think it would make interesting reading.
Thanks for the input. Oh, and no need to look at all of the intermediate versions. Any help with WP:RS for widths and the SE quadrant would be much appreciated. YBG (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

...principal north and south streets (from 99 to 132 feet wide) being nearly one mile in length, and the east and west streets (from 66 to 132 feet wide) from a mile and a quarter to a mile and three quarters.

— Elgar, Frederic (1863). Handbook to the Colony of South Australia. London: "Australian and New Zealand Gazette" Office. p. 3. Retrieved 8 December 2014. 
Hutt Street and the blocks in the southeast corner were part of the original plans.[9][10][11] Frome Street was a 1960s invention.
My next question might be when and how did King William Road extend to O'Connell Street? --Scott Davis Talk 04:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I've added the quote to the reference, it seemed pertinent, but feel free to revert. Thanks! And it's good to see that there was no foul play in the SE. But it still begs the question -- why the asymmetry? Of course, one has only to look across the Torrens to know that Col. Light wasn't OCD. YBG (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm happy with the quote included. I checked the old surveyor's maps to confirm that the terraces are the same widths as King William, Grote and Wakefield Streets and have updated the text and diagram to match.
I believe that the asymmetry is a consequence of Light's preference for fitting the city to the landscape, somewhat earlier than the garden city movement. The gully of the creek demands that North Terrace cannot be as long as South Terrace is.I believe that corner is actually the highest land in the City of Adelaide, so could have had commanding views for early residents. --Scott Davis Talk 23:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
That makes good sense. It would be great to find a WP:RS for it! YBG (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I've seen one, just have no idea where at the moment, so can't add it. If I remember/find it, I'll add it if I haven't forgotten this conversation by then. --Scott Davis Talk 12:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


Confess! You enjoyed that, didn't you!!
Stepping through the changes was an interesting journey.
Although certain things got a negative reaction on first view - (e.g. "Pink border! Eeew!! That'll have to go ... ") - by the time I got to the end of the journey, things like the pink border didn't seem to be bothering me.
(BTW: Interesting that I.E. and Chrome give such different presentations of the same raw data ... (No I won't pursue that topic - likely to turn into a religious war!))
What you've arrived at is not "perfect", but in my POV is a more-than-adequate "baseline".
The two major-for-me issues I'm ruminating on are: 1) The loss of Morphett & Pulteney Streets & 2) How to inform the reader that the N-S street-reserves/widths alternate between "wide" (originally 4 lanes) and "narrow" (originally 2 lanes).
And yes, there are other issues too - c.f. Scott's posting above,
However, as I said, in my no-doubt-biased opinion, what you have arrived at is a more-than-adequate "baseline".
Many thanks for your efforts! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
P.S. When the time comes, and someone tells me I have 5 minutes, I hope they're the same 5 minutes it took you ...  ;-) Pdfpdf (talk) 10:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
The 5 minutes I was referring to was the the 5 minutes it took to get the very first revision up, so that you would know how much time you'd have to wait to see it. The rest, of course, was much more than 5 minutes. No time warp here, just time zone differences. YBG (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, I confess. Yes, I enjoyed that. But the jury is still out as to whether it is a sinful pleasure or a righteous one. Regarding your issues:
  1. Re Morphett & Pulteney: I have in mind a way to restore them by splitting the other streets like I did around the four quadrant squares
  2. Re Widths N-S streets. Look at the wiki markup -- I've included a placeholder for where the widths should go for E/W Tce and King Wm.
  3. Re pink. I chose it in part because it was short and kept the lines from wrapping inconveniently. Go ahead and pick another color.
It will likely be a few days before I get around to making any more changes. In the mean time, if you could insert the widths for the N-S streets that are shown and make a note here for Morphett & Pulteney.
In the long run, I think I still favor a tabular presentation like the one you originally reverted, with the detailed geography relegated to a blow-up of the southern half of the pretty graphic of Light's Vision that is shown further up in the article. But I'm not interested in arguing about that any more than IE vs Chrome, about which I'm actually rather agnostic.YBG (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
LOL. <pause> ROTFL! (Thanks, I needed a good laugh.) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I've tightened up the widths in the diagram; I still prefer them inside the diagram, but that's another thing I don't want to argue about. YBG (talk)
I tried adding Morphett & Pulteney, but the column widths got all messed up, so I reverted it back. It's ugly in Chrome and even worse in IE. YBG (talk) 07:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


NOTE: The squares in the 4 quadrants go over TWO streets - not just one.
What I changed it to, & YBG reverted.
Add Morphett & Pulteney.
And maybe add Frome & Hutt???
Pdfpdf (talk) 12:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

And yes, you're correct - I need to get a life. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I stand corrected. When I reverted your version saying "Undo 4 revisions by User:Pdfpdf. Somehow, Waymouth, Pirie, Wright, Carrington got dropped out, probably a wiki markup issue" I was wrong. I thought those four streets disappeared, but I simply lost track of the fact that you'd changed the quadrant squares to being 2 streets wide. Thank you for not biting my head off!! YBG (talk) 06:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I tweaked the table slightly before I saw this fork - turns out I was right, Hurtle Square in the article was one cell to the left of where the spreadsheet says it should be. My usual browser is Firefox, which is collapsing to zero-width columns 3 and 12 which are only ever used as spacers and never have their own content. This makes the squares look off-centre. I think putting the nbsp on each end of some words should be unnecessary too, cell padding should do what I think these are trying to achieve, and work better with screen-readers etc.
I think Frome Street goes one row too far in the last chart above. It's difficult to be definitive, as the rows represent the streets, but the N-S streets are actually between the properties and intersect with E-W streets; It's Regent Street south of Angas Street anyway ;-) I have no idea how wide it is (or if it's the same width throughout). --Scott Davis Talk 13:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
<grin>"A rose by any other name would smell the same"? - What starts at Nth Tce as Frome St continues south to Carrington where there's a T junction with Carrington. Yes, as you point out, this is not consistent with the representation of, for example, Hutt St, which has a-sort-of-T-junction with Sth Tce. Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
If we can figure out a reasonable way to have East Tce zig and zag, then I'm in favor of adding Hutt St. However, I'd prefer to leave out Frome/Regent Sts. If we add them, then why not Gawler Place also? And then why not include all of the little lanes, places and alleyways? Even now it is more like a map than a diagram -- despite the fact that we're putting street names inside cells, whereas in actual fact, the streets are not cells but rather the dividing lines between cells -- already the source of some confusion. All of this brings me back to what I still think is the best way of doing things -- a much, much simpler list whose primary purpose is to illustrate the street pair concept. Maybe a second list of N-S streets which could show the historical street pairs eliminated in the 60s. Then put all of the geographic detail in an actual MAP, where we can not only illustrate the Frome, Hutt, Gawler and the zig-zagging of East Tce, but also the fact that the 'squares' are in at least three different shapes:
  • NW - Light Sq - Oval with one street going thru
  • SW - Whitmore - Oval with no streets going thru
  • NE - Hindmarsh - Rectangular with two streets going thru
  • SE - Hurtle Sq - Rectangular with two streets going thru
  • C - Victoria Sq - Diamond inside a rectangle with a bisector
I'm fine to continue tweaking what we've got, but really, text, lists and tables should describe, list and lay out textual information and let pix present visual information. What we really need is a graphic that magnifies the southern half of the pink-and-green map(File:Streetmap of Adelaide and North Adelaide.svg). YBG (talk) 06:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


I have expanded the chart to show pretty much everything in Col. Light's plan -- the streets, squares, and town acres. I have not tried to show the roads that cross the parklands. Interestingly, choosing to follow Light simplifies some of the issues that we have been discussing:

  • Which streets to include
    • Hutt Street makes the cut, it is in Light's plan
    • Frome Street and Gawler Place are not in Light's plan
    • Brown and Hanson make the cut -- linked to newly created redirects to Morphett and Pulteney respectively
  • The quadrant squares
    • All are (very nearly) symmetrical on Light's plan
    • Each goes up to but not across the E-W street closer to the centre
    • Each actually blocks the street on the opposite end of the square
  • Including the town acres
    • Simplifies showing the zigs & zags of East Tce
    • Simplifies showing the configuration of all five squares
    • (to do?) I did not show how the streets go around the quadrant square on the edge away from Victoria Square

It was an interesting exercise in table layout, but I still think that I prefer a much simpler list of streets & street pairs with an adjacent map labeled with the Light's streets and squares. Perhaps we could use dotted lines to show the changes between Light's Vision and present-day Adelaide: Frome and Gawler, the slight changes in the alignment of East Tce, and the modern configuration of roadways around the five squares.

A truly impressive piece of work! To say "Well done" seems inadequate. Pdfpdf (talk) 02:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)