Talk:List of Canberra suburbs

Untitled

What would peoples thoughts be on moving the information on the List of postcodes in the Australian Capital Territory page onto this page and redirecting the postcodes page to here. I can't see that the postcodes page is any use, and it is very incomplete. I would be willing to copy the information over if people agreed.

So the list would look something like:

Belconnen

• Aranda (2614)
• Belconnen (2617) - Belconnen Town Centre
• Bruce (2617)
• Charnwood (2615) - Charnwood Centre
• ....

Martyman 08:45, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We could. I'd sooner see the postcard page redirected here, rather than merged. Does anyone care about having postcodes in an encyclopedia? Ambi 09:08, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I just looked it up and found a bunch of them for other countries - Lists of postal codes Cfitzart 05:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Changed Districts

I added a South Canberra district and moved a few other suburbs around. I feel that the list now more accurately matches the actual districts in Canberra. Unlike bigger cities that have local government for districts and therefore legal definitions, Canberra's districts only serve as geographical identifiers. Martyman 10:58, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just got them from that official site (operated by the ACT government, I think?). Strangely, I can't find the URL at the moment. Ambi 11:22, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, actually I have found the districts listed differently using the same base map on different ACT government webpages. I am not sure there are very strong rules about them. For example some sites list north and south canberra as Cenral Canberra. It seems very strange to me to refer to any suburbs South of Lake Burley Griffin as North Canberra. I would trust the tables you get to after clicking through the (incorectly labled) maps here [1]. Martyman 11:36, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Commercial Centres naming conventions

I posted the text below on the Griffith, Australian Capital Territory talk page. Without typing it out again, I think the issue also applies to some other centres on the Canberra suburbs list. A naming convention would be useful and it may be that the wikilinks to centres listed on this page should be changed but they also need to be changed wherever else wikilinks appear.

The Manuka Centre wikilink has been changed. I think we should try to achieve some consistency with the naming of these. On the List of Canberra suburbs page, these appear as Manuka centre and Kingston centre, however Dickson Centre is named 'Dickson Centre, Australian Capital Territory'. I think AYArktos has the right idea and 'Manuka, Australian Capital Territory' is the way to go, but we should maybe agree on a naming convention and change the Kingston, Australian Capital Territory and List of Canberra suburbs accordingly.

Adz 23:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Manuka is ever called Manuka Centre. I feel that anything to be said about the Kingston shops should be able to be said in the suburb article. I am surprised that the Dickson centre needs a separate article and couldn't be merged with the suburb article too but otherwise am happy with its name.--AYArktos 02:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

In relation to developing stubs for centres, showing currently as bolded redlinks, I am really concerned that we might spread ourselves too thin with a plethora of stubs, particularly if we try to do articles for centres separately to the main suburb article. Could we please do redirects from the centre name to the suburb article and include the content in the suburb article until two articles are justified by the amount of content. Manuka is different as it is a business district that falls across suburb boundaries and was very much a separate entity to the residential suburbs. There is also now enough content to justify a separate article.--AYArktos 01:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for taking a while to get back to you AYArktos. I think I generally agree with you, although I think that we shoud keep the Town Centres separate and not roll them into the suburb (eg. Tuggeranong should not roll into Greenway). I think Philip is an exception because there isn't much to Philip outside the town centre (if you consider the bit south of Hindmarsh Drive to also be part of the town centre). Additionally, I think we should keep any group centre articles which already exist, and we should mark in bold and suburbs which also contain group centres. (This also leads me to wonder whether we should list the suburbs under the group centres they are located near, but this could get messy). Lets wait to see if anybody else has an opinion, and if not, then go ahead and make the changes.

Adz 10:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there's an issue with spreading ourselves too thin, but I think a common sense approach might be best in this instance, deciding each example on its merits. There's some town centres, such as Dickson and Philip, that really don't make sense as being seperate from their respective suburbs, while there's some, such as Tuggeranong, that really don't make much sense unless they are seperate. Ambi 11:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that group centres should not necessarily have their own article. And Town centres could also be dealt with in the district article, or the suburb article. But I also agree that there is merit in being able to wikilink from suburb articles to the group and town centres that service the suburb. Martyman 11:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I started making the Belconnen centres consistent with this by adding ..., Australian Capital Territory to the links but Ambi keeps reverting my changes. She also reverted a redirect from Jamison Centre to Macquarie which discusses the centre while there is currently no separate article and probably doesn't warrant one. It would appear we need to come to a more specific consensus as I hate all this unwarranted reversion of attempts to tighten the Canberra project articles. Garglebutt / (talk) 00:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• I think we should stick to the Australian place naming convention for places including shopping centres. That is the Tuggeranong Town Centre should be named the Tuggeranong Town Centre, Australian Capital Territory. I don't understand the rationale for inconsistency in this. As above I would really rather see content about group centres develop within the suburb article in the first instance. Manuka is not wholly within any one suburb. Major town centres including Belconnen, Tuggeranong, ... seem to justify their own articles. The Dickson Centre article I think would be better merged with the Dickson suburb article. Jamison centre to my mind does not warrant a separate article from the suburb of Macquarie; neither a redlink nor a redirect is required.--AYArktos 00:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • We have plenty of shopping centre articles; I see no reason why there shouldn't be an article on Jamison Centre, and in that case, it should be redlinked. I have no opinion either way on adding the suffix to Tuggeranong and Belconnen Town Centres, but I do strongly object to adding it to shopping centres - nowhere else in the world on Wikipedia does that. Ambi 01:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• I wrote the Macquarie article and the Jamison Centre content in it. I see no validity in spliting what is already a fairly short article into two even smaller articles. Why do we have differing naming conventions based on arbitrary definitions of whether Dickson and Manuka are shopping areas or not? More importantly, how come one person has nominated themselves arbitrator in this. Garglebutt / (talk) 02:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• If you don't like Macquarie being a short article, write more for it. The links to the shopping centres on this list have been there since the beginning precisely because it was thought they could make good articles, and I resent your declaring yourself arbitrator and declaring otherwise. We have naming conventions for suburbs, which have long been set, and we have naming conventions for shopping centres. The town centres are an area of dispute because they're neither, hence why we're discussing it here. Ambi 02:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I have a question in response to Ambi's comments in the voting section below. I think the issue - from my perspective is that some of the 'shopping centres' aren't just shopping centres, but also 'localities' - even though they don't necessarilly (as in the case of manuka) line up with a suburb map. Given that some group centres are 'localities' and not just 'shopping centres' why shouldn't 'localities' follow the same convention as suburbs? (Dickson isn't just a shopping centre, but a collection of streets with commercial activity, as is Jamison for that matter - the area to the east of the shopping centre itself contains several stores, a nursery, etc). I'll wait for an answer to the question and give it some more thought before voting. Adz 03:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no issue at all with the localities - that makes a lot of sense, and to do otherwise would be being overly arbitrary. It's the things like Kippax Fair that shouldn't (which was one of the ones being renamed); Jamison Centre I've never actually been to - but if it's a locality, then fine. Ambi 10:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Vote for Commercial Centre naming convention

1. The proposal is that references to commercial centres, be they shopping centres such as Jamison or Kippax or more general areas such as Belconnen, Dickson and Manuka, be consistently named centre name, Australian Capital Territory.

2. Where the centre is sufficiently small or not noteworthy enough to substantiate a separate article, any references should point back to the suburb rather than redlinked.

Agree - Let's end this debate and get on with producing a well structured group of articles. Garglebutt / (talk) 02:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC) Agree--AYArktos 02:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Disagree. Everywhere else in the world on Wikipedia has shopping centres at their normal name. This includes the rest of Australia. I really don't see the point of having a naming convention that is used only in one city and opposes the one used everywhere else - and doing that only because one user got impatient. Saying that this debate is halting article writing is a nonsense (as what else have I been doing all morning?); let us work it out now. Ambi 02:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I see that despite the comments on your user page, you continue to be overly involved in wikipolitics: Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board. Incorrectly naming me as suggesting a change to naming conventions when this page confirms otherwise is somewhat defamatory and reinforces my opinion on who is wasting time here. Garglebutt / (talk) 03:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

You're suggesting a change. At the moment, we don't add the suffix to shopping centres or redirect them to broader articles. You're suggesting that we should. Regardless of one's opinion on that, if implemented, it would equal a change. Ambi 10:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I think I agree' and disagree with Garglebutt. To clarify I'm opposed to have the shopping centres as articles at all, except in the case of Canberra's town centres. I would prefer if something like the Jamison Centre was simply a redirect to Macquarie and the Kingston shops to Kingston the suburb and so on, and discussed in the subrubs article. Unless there are multiple shopping centres with the same name, then I don't think the article name needs the ACT qualifer, we should be able to keep track of them by way of cateogries.--nixie 03:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll assume that is a Disagree for 1. and a qualified Agree for 2. Garglebutt / (talk) 03:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

That's about right. Something like Manuka needs to be Manuka, ACT since Manuka is also a common name for a NZ tree species should have the ACT qualifier.--nixie 03:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

No disagreement from me there. Ambi 04:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

disagree with #1, agree with #2. But it doesnt really bother me either way. I think you should only add the ACT on the end when theres a chance of it being confused with somewhere else in the world, names should be as simple as possible generally. I think with #2 all links should point to the suburb, until the centre within the article develops where its large enough to warrant a new article. Actually maybe the best thing to do would be to take out the centre links completely from the suburbs page - it is supposed to be a list of suburbs, not shopping centres after all. Cfitzart 04:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I like the idea of having the commercial centres outlined there as well - I'm prepared to write articles for all of them ASAP if this is an issue. Ambi 04:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

1. Don't care, 2. Agree. I think the usefulness of these articles is diluted if the information is spread too thin. Martyman 04:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with nixie and Cfitzart. That is to say, I don't think shopping centres require a clause, but neither do I think they require their own articles. They should be written about in their respective suburbs and only in their own articles if there is enough information to justify them.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 08:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Qualified agree to both. I think that if makes sense for localities to have an 'Australian Capital Territory' suffix (such as Manuka, Dickson, Jamison). I'm less fussed about shopping centres, but if it's going to cause inconsistency as Ambi said, then I'm less in favour, but won't get tied up in knots over it. On the second proposal, I think that redlinks should be taken care of. I think the preferred way of doing this is to redirect as it allows/encourages people to fill out the 'missing articles'. That said, I think that Kaleen for example should not be a separate article as it is only a shopping centre and should be rolled in with the suburb. In this case, I think Kaleen should appear in bold to indicate that it is a group centre in addition to being a suburb. Adz 11:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Agree with proposals 1 and 2. I don't understand why the Australian place naming convention doesn't apply to shopping centres. In terms of whether something merits an article or not - I am always prepared to be pleasantly surprised but I would be disappointed if only stubs were produced in order to get rid of the redlink. I feel sure there are more interesting things to write about. Cyberjunkie's comment that shopping centres should be written about in their respective suburbs and only in their own articles if there is enough information to justify them seems to capture the majority opinion. (I think Adz means Kippax rather than Kaleen - Kaleen is a residential suburb, Kippax is in Holt I think).--AYArktos 11:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • You already said you agreed above. Firstly, the suburb naming convention is for just that, suburbs. What next - Melbourne Central, Victoria? Sydney Opera House, New South Wales? Secondly, where is the harm on having articles about shopping centres? I find them interesting, and I'm sure I'm not the only one - they tend to survive VFD these days for that very reason. I'm fine with incorporating them into the article if it's a case like Kingston shops, but to do it where it is a seperate entity like Kippax Fair is taking mergism too far. Ambi 11:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I think this has gone far enough to confirm that we shouldn't change the naming standard for commercial centres, but unless they are sufficiently interesting to warrant a separate article, such as Dickson and Manuka, rolling them into the suburb article and directing references there is valid. Garglebutt / (talk) 12:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

North Lyneham

I've put a link to north lyneham in the suburbs page, because everyone who lives there thinks of it as separate to Lyneham (the link redirects to Lyneham, I wanted to redirect to the part of the article with the heading n.lyneham, dunno how to do it). "North lyneham" has 791 google hits btw [2] 10:12, 7 September 2005 Cfitzart

I've revised the link to jump to the North Lyneham section. Garglebutt / (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Unless North Lyneham is actually its own statistical local area, I don't think it should have its own article.--nixie 00:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page states "Note that, while it is possible to link to a section, it is not possible to redirect to a section. For example, "#REDIRECT [[United Nations#International_Years]]" will redirect to the United Nations page, but not to any particular section on it. This feature will not be implemented in the future, so such redirects should not be used." Garglebutt's link is of course on this page listing suburbs not on a redirect page. The principle with redirects is "no surprises". I can't think anyone would be surprised if they were redirected from North Lyneham to Lyneham. Regards--AYArktos 00:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I concur with nixie that North Lyneham should not have its own article and think itis appropriately placed as a section within the Lyneham article. I appreciate there are very different characteristics between the two areas. That applies also to other suburbs, for example old Red Hill (heritage area) and new Red Hill (post 1960) and "upper" and "lower" Narrabundah.--AYArktos 00:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I think Cfitzart used the wrong terminology which has caused some confusion. It is within the Lyneham article. Cfitzart just wanted it separately mentioned and linked in the List of suburbs which has been done. Garglebutt / (talk) 03:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes thats what I meant, sorry I didnt explain myself very clearly there, thanks for correcting the link. Cfitzart 08:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Planned suburbs

I notice that Astrokey44 has helpfully marked the suburbs which, though surveyed, haven't yet been opened. What about Forde, though? I'm not sure if construction has started, but it was opened up for development this year (Harrison appears to be similar, but it isn't marked as such). And what's the situation with Crace? Ambi 14:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

According to the map ive got theres a whole lot of nothing in Forde, and Crace has only nature reserve and radio stations. Harrison on the other hand has quite alot of streets. The map is 2005, but it might still be out of date. regards, Astrokey44 00:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Swinger hill

It looks like it should be part of Mawson, because it is on the other side of Hindmarsh drive and Athlon drive along with the rest of Mawson. It would probaly make more sense if it were part of Mawson. However, Swinger hill is actually in Philip. (looking at the street directory) Astrokey44 00:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed - I have reverted - apologies. I did check the phone book and Swinger Hill businesses think they are part of Mawson but .... --AYArktos 01:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I think youre right about the shops though, well Im only looking from the map, never been there, but they are just over the little red line, in Mawson. Maybe thats the shops called Swinger hill shops? (doesnt give a name on the map) Astrokey44 01:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

If you have broadband you might find this website handy [3]. i think you need to search by street name, although I haven't had a play around with it so not sure. It shows suburb and district boundaries and allows you to zoon in to street level. - I doubt it will have names of shops though. Adz 04:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Its a nice site, the ones I meant were in block 2 of this map (at the top) [4] Astrokey44 04:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that swinger hill is not an official ACT suburb. According to the ACT government naming conventions any Estate Names have no legal standing. [5] Therefore it is not to surprising that swinger hill does not neatly line up with any suburb boundries. The majority of housing is in Philip and it would appear that the shops fall accross the boundry in Mawson. Does Swinger Hill actuallt require it's own article? Martyman 02:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

An amazing number of blue links

There has obviously been a great deal of activity going on recently judging by the change of hue on this page. Congratulations--AYArktos 12:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Full points to Astrokey44 for kicking this off - hopefully they'll be developed somewhat faster now. It'd be nice if somewhat could give them a bit of a look over though - there's a few grammar issues that need to be cleaned up (like uncapitalised street names). Ambi 12:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

table / grid of Canberra suburbs added

Howdy All. A table/grid of Canberra suburbs has been added at List of suburbs of Canberra/table. The quick primer on using it is this: Ideally everything in columns 1, 2, 5, and 6 should be blue; and everything in columns 3 and 4 should either be red, or if it is blue it should be checked to make sure that it is either a redirect page, or a disambig page that includes a link to the Canberra suburb of the same name, or includes a "see also" link to the Canberra suburb of that name. Canberra is in very good shape (everything in col 1 is blue, there is nothing in cols 5 and 6, only a few redirects in col 2 need to be added, nothing needs to be done in col 3, and only a handful of things need to be checked in col 4). Hope this is useful to you! -- All the best, Nickj (t) 04:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

This is quite helpful, but it'd be nice if it were moved out of the article space; could it be moved to a subpage of the talk page? I'm also a bit confused as to why, say, Acton, Australia shouldn't redirect to Acton, Australian Capital Territory or be a disambiguation page; this seems like a potentially helpful redirect to me. Ambi 06:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Gilmore, Australia is a duplicate of Gilmore, Australian Capital Territory --Martyman-(talk) 07:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

By all means, add the Acton, Australia → Acton, Australian Capital Territory style redirects if you think they're helpful (only reason to exclude it was to cut down on the level of work for you folks). Also it's no problem moving the grid page (I just picked somewhere and hoped it would be OK - there was no real logic to it), so please feel free to move it to a more suitable location. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 00:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I have moved the table into the Canberra wikiprject namespace at Wikipedia:WikiProject Canberra/Suburbs/Table. Just a quick question. What are columns 5 and 6 meant to show? Thanks, --Martyman-(talk) 00:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Columns 5 and 6 and for showing suburbs with North / South / East / West in their name, but the other way around; So for example if there was such a suburb as "North Acton, Australian Capital Territory", then columns 5 and 6 would show "Acton North" and "Acton North, Australian Capital Territory" respectively. The reason for this is that from Sydney I've found that many places with a point-of-compass-name are also known in the reverse order (e.g. some people call it "Strathfield South", others call it "South Strathfield"). This frequently leads to either red links (when the articles actually do exist, just under the other name), or to duplicated articles (due to different people using different names). The best way to avoid this is to have one article / stub at the official name, with redirects at these alternate names pointing to the correct name. Canberra however doesn't have any suburbs of this type, so in this case those columns are empty - but if you want to see an example of them being used, please see List of Sydney suburbs/table. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 22:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for that, makes much more sense now. --Martyman-(talk) 01:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Divisions

Looking at the www.gim.act.gov.au, some districts show differently to what is indicated in this artlcle, Firstly what our article calls Districts, ACT government call Divisions. ACT gov Districts correspoond to suburbs. In the detail, particularly, Hume, Symonston and Oaks Estate are in Jerrabombera. Pialligo is in Majura. North Canberra and South Canberra are together known as Central Canberra. Hall is its own Division. Tharwa is in Paddys River. GB 03:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)