Jump to content

Talk:Dulwich, South Australia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Surrounding suburbs

[edit]

Mmmm. Interesting.
Dulwich is adjacent to the Parklands, not the CBD. Does it matter that the Parklands are not a "suburb" as such? Take, for example, suburbs like Rostrevor and Athelsone which are adjacent to Black Hill and Morialta conservation parks. Which suburbs are the conservation parks in? Are Rostrevor and Athelsone adjacent to those suburbs, or are they adjacent to the conservation parks?
Does it matter?
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The parklands are not a suburb, so why list them under "Suburbs around Dulwich"? The bordering suburb is Adelaide, so rationally that's what should be listed as such. (Rostrevor is ajacent to Woodforde, Athelstone is to Montacute) --AtD (talk) 07:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another "Mmmm". I asked four questions; you answered one of them - as it happens, the one I'm least interested in!
so why list them - I thought I explained that. What about my explanation didn't you understand? If you understood it, what about the explanation don't you like?
As I have conceded and stated several times in several places, yes it is the "bordering suburb", and no, the parklands are not a suburb. The point/issue/question I have raised (and you have not adressed) is: It is not adjacent.
Look, I'm not after a fight, and I'm not unreasonable. (e.g. I didn't revert your change.) What I'm after here is an intelligent discussion of the issue(s). Pdfpdf (talk) 10:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried a different approach. What do you think? Revert it if you feel you must, but please, give a reasonable justification. I'm trying to find a "win-win" solution here ... Pdfpdf (talk) 10:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My two cents. A suburb, in the Australian context, is a labelled division of land into an area identified as distinct from the areas immediately around it. In the metropolitan area, specifically, property that lies within a suburb's boundary is said to be part of that suburb. Hence, Dulwich has identity as distinct from its surrounds even though there is no physical separation to speak of.
Addresses within the Adelaide parklands identify themselves as being part of their respective suburb. The Victoria Park Racecourse, which occupies the land immediately opposite Dulwich is recognised as being part of Adelaide ([1]), and most, if not all, other localities within the parklands are listed as being within Adelaide or North Adelaide ([2] [3] [4] [5] [6]).
It would be misleading to identify the parklands as adjacent to Dulwich as few, if any, of the organisations within the parklands acknowledge it as being distinct from Adelaide or North Adelaide in this context. This would blur the distinction between a suburb's notional boundaries and geographic boundaries. Dulwich is not distinct from Rose Park or Toorak Gardens save for the notional concept of a suburban boundary (Or for a better example, Salisbury is not distinct from Salisbury North, Salisbury South, Salisbury Downs, etc, save for this concept). Upper North Adelaide is distinct from Lower North Adelaide in a geographic context, but not under the framework of a suburb as a locality. The premise of this article is Dulwich as a notional distinction as suburb, so the infobox at least should reflect this.
The title of the page Adelaide city centre is a misrepresentation, in my opinion. I have [Talk:Adelaide_city_centre|suggested] it be moved. --AtD (talk) 11:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I either agree with, or don't understand, everything you say.
My (not your, or anybody else's,) problem is, I don't understand what point you are trying to make. (And yes, I feel really stupid.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point is having the Parklands in the "Suburbs around Dulwich" box is misleading. It'd be the same as listing Glenside Hospital as being adjacent to the south. --AtD (talk) 01:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I'm not sure whether I agree with you, but at least I now understand your point! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dulwich,_South_Australia&oldid=1200953471"