Jump to content

Talk:Canberra/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Canberra and the ACT

Isn't there talk of making the city of Canberra coterminous with the whole of the Capital Territory? -24.149.203.34 (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no "City of Canberra" as a political entity - Canberra is just that part of the territory that has been absorbed into suburbia - so unless the suburbs encroach onto Namadgi, they can't really be coterminous. WA Burdett (talk) 01:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

ACT self-government election

The election for the first ACT self-government was on 4 March 1989, not in February as stated in the article. See Grundy, Philip, et al. Reluctant Democrats/The Transition to Self-Government in the Australian Capital Territory. Canberra: Federal Capital Press, 1996. p197. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.14.97 (talk) 12:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed statement

I have removed the statment "Due to the fact that there is almost no orthogonal design in the city, Canberrans are wont to point in a direction when asked where something is located. Instructions to follow certain streets are exceptionally rare." This statement belongs on uncyclopedia due to its obsurdness and until you have evidence to back up this totally ridiculous statement dont pit it back there, if anyone disagrees with my decision to remove it, please give me your reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamum31 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess this article was promoted to FA status a long time ago - that kind of stuff shouldn't slip though.... Wongm (talk) 11:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Climate graph

needs clearer time axis. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC).

Invite to Canberra Meetup #2

--.../Nemo (talk • Contributions) 13:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I deleted this:

"Perhaps because of the large educated population Canberra is seen as being a left-wing town, and has been labelled by commentators including Piers Ackerman the People's Republic of Canberra"

From the introduction. If anyone thinks it is important or relevant to the article please reinstate in usefully.Meow meow - purr purr (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

i agree if its anything Canberra would have a conservative reputation.

Canberra is generally further left leaning than much of the country (going on election results), but not to an extent to warrant a quoe like that in the introduction. Agreed. Steewi (talk) 03:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Griffin and Canberra design

'Canberra is a planned city that was originally designed by Walter Burley Griffin, a major 20th century American architect.[44]' This statement is misleading as it assumes the city was designed by Griffin, while in fact the only thing left from original design by Griffin is the parliamentary triangle and lake (also heavily modified). Griffin was fired by Australian politicians from his job. Most of Canberra is designed by the politicians!!! There are no boulevards with shops alongside as envisioned by Griffin. It is basically an English (Australia is ruled by English till today) town, with English cottages and English style landscapes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.34.140.221 (talk) 02:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Not entirely true, but I get your point. Many of the original suburbs were built exactly as Griffin designed them, but his vision for the City was quickly diluted. It is true that he won the international design competition and that his design was the starting-point for Canberra. MartinL-585 (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
1.The statement 'Canberra is a planned city that was originally designed by Walter Burley Griffin' is entirely correct. Your point refers to post-original design. 2.The bulk of the subsequent design was done by Bureaucrats (NCDC) not Politicians.Wildplum69 (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to clarify it as it wasn't just NCDC (which basically serves the politisians anyway) but in a big way Prime Minister Robert Menzies who was an anglophile and monarchist and didn't like Griffin's 'continental' design. He insisted on changing Canberra's design to 'bush' capital (basically similar to English picturesque but with Australian element). It was Robert Menzies who pressend for English town planning model of Canberra rather than European/American as W. Griffin designed. The architect W. Holford (also an Englishman) was put in charge and amended Griffin's plans. The City Beautiful model was abondoned and this is why today Canberra looks more like an English village. Please do not blame NCDC - they followed the politicians - NCDC had to do that, NCDC couldn't bite the hand that was it was fed by. Please check the sources like: K. Fischer 'Canberra: Myths and Models: Forces at work in the formation of the Australian Capital' Hamburg, Institute of Asian Affairs, 1984. Local Australian sources aren't objective and usually take pro-government form and look more or less like tourism brochure full of praise for Griffin and his design and giving him all the credits (though we know very well that all the satelite town centres like Woden, Belconnen etc were never envisaged by Griffin). Also, while originally designed by W. Griffin may be true - we have to consider that when Griffin's contract wasn't extended (he was fired) there wasn't much finished on the ground - only few roads. We should strive to be objective in Wikipedia and not just repeat without questioning official line of the Australian government about Griffin and Canberra. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homo hi (talk • contribs) 13:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

We can assume that less than 5% of present Canberra was planned by Griffin. And as someone mentioned before: it was heavilly amended by the politicians anyway. Maybe a bit of history should be added explaining what actually happened to Griffin's work, his vision and design ie. he always believed the Parliament House should be placed at the lowest point of the city to create a democratic city where average citizen lived above the government. And that was the case with the Old Parliament House. Yet, in 1988 new Parliament House was built like a king's castle on the hill ignoring the Griffin's vision of people's city. Undeniably, there is a strong movement (supported by the government) that gives a credit to Griffin as the main and only designer of Canberra - and this is also heavilly used by the tourism industry etc. But anyone who researched a bit deeper the history of Canberra and Griffin's work gets quite a different picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.129.21.2 (talk) 06:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Peter Proudffot wrote: 'While paying false homage to Walter and Marion Griffin and their visionary plan, politicians and public figures alike have discarded the most significant components of that plan and disregarded the aesthetic principles critical to its implementation. The picturesque capital of Australia is largely the manifestation of conservative idealism generated from an English background. The 'public' city, a civic and democratic symbol, is now only the dream of a few ideologues. Canberra has become the expression of private individuals, who have vacillated between the frantic desire to find something comprehensible to belong to, and an equally consuming passion to act on their own.' http://www.scribd.com/doc/186934/Proudfoot-The-Secret-Plan-of-Canberra-Occult-Masonic-Architecture-of-Australias-Capital-1994 Maybe we shoudl include this note and the weblink. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homo hi (talk • contribs) 03:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Coordinates

Please note that the coordinates in this article need fixing as:

  • The coordinates for Canberra, Australia are -35.17S, 149.08E

(Coordinates in article are more accurate than these. BrainMarble (talk) 01:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

"No one has supported your view for this tag"

YES, THEY HAVE. Do I need to quote myself? Here is what I just wrote. 150.203.230.8 (talk) 09:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

"Also, someone who removed my NPOV tag said that I'm the only one who has this issue with the page. If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Canberra/Archive_4#A_balanced_view you'll find someone saying that this article reads like a PR brochure, with no mention of any problems this city might have. If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Canberra/Archive_4#Missed_the_vibe you'll see other people have agreed with me. They even said that it should be fairly easy to establish from newspapers and books."

You are willingly ignoring that there are people who have said that the article is not neutral, because it does not reflect that there are criticisms of Canberra. 150.203.230.8 (talk) 09:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

How about this "Some clueless fools, probably the same loons who pronounce it "Can-bear-ah", mindlessly parrot canards whenever given the chance"> Sums it up nicely, and is in no way non-NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.45.98.97 (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Typo in caption

The Canberra page is semi-protected and I don't have sufficient privileges to edit it. I noticed a typo in the caption to the top image: 'parlimentary' should be 'Parliamentary'. If pages are to be semi-protected they should at least have a level of editorial overview that would prevent gross errors like this, ones that a casual reader like me could correct easily without the semi-protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pherous (talk • contribs) 06:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Ditto, trying correct Molongo -> Molonglo, Australian Capital Territory dab bypass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.113.234.63 (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

True translation of the Aboriginal word for Canberra

There is a commonly promoted and accepted myth concerning the name of Australia's national capital, Canberra.

The word is supposedly derived from the Ngunnawal (aboriginal language) word "kambera" or "kambarra" and is often quite incorrectly said to mean "meeting place". The reality is that aboriginal people would have met at very many places for various purposes, and their languages tend to refer to those localities in terms of easily identifiable landmarks, rather than the activities conducted there. Consequently there isn't usually a single word which substitutes for such an abstract concept of a universal "meeting place". Rather, in the case of Ngunnawal language, the word is more correctly translated as "women's breasts", and is usually regarded as a reference to cleavage between the twin busty shaped hills of Mt Ainslie and Black Mountain which would have been a convenient way for the wandering hunter-gatherers to identify (or sing) the course of the Molonglo River from afar.

Yes, it was certainly a place where the aboriginals would have met. It is quite well known that tribal clans met in this vicinity on a seasonal basis to feast on the richly nutritious bogong moth, and to sing and dance and celebrate life. When the moth season finished they would move on to the next place of food gathering where they would also sing and dance and celebrate life. The purpose of the place isn't the same thing as a correct translation of their name for it though, and devoid of European prudery, the local aboriginal peoples would have had no qualms whatever in refering to good camping places on the river by simple references to familiar objects such as the perky breasts of a young woman.

For naked peoples, there is nothing particularly remarkable about any part of the human body, nor in the use of such anatomical terms as comparison to characteristics in the landscape. This practice occurs frequently throughout the Australian continent and islands, and most tribes have localities they refer to by their own words for buttocks, breasts and genitalia, as well as most other body parts.

The long running conspiracy to conceal or sanitise the true meaning of the word after which Australia's capital is named might conceivably have come about for any number of reasons, however, it is high time the record is set straight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter b (talk • contribs) 05:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Old meaning stays since you not sourced it and is just your original research. A few websites prove the old meaning is correct[1][2][3]. Bidgee (talk) 06:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
These websites prove nothing - they just repeat it as if it is fact. MartinL-585 (talk) 03:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The "breasts" meaning was seriously supported by an academic at ANU more than a decade ago. I remember it got a fair bit of publicity at the time (I have been at ANU since 1983). It is easy to find brief mentions in newspaper articles, but I didn't find a citable source that names a particular expert as a supporter. One article mentions the Canberra Historical Society, maybe someone can contact them. McKay (talk) 09:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Here's something (Canberra Times, 8 December 2005, p12), quoting "local history researcher Christine Fernon":
Most people, however, believed the name was of Aboriginal origin and was used long before the appearance of white settlers. "The Polish naturalist John Lhotsky, who traversed the Monaro Plains in 1834, said the local people called the area Kembery. Joshua Moore had spelt the name 'Canburry' in 1831. In 1838 Aubrey Mowle wrote that 'the native name of Canberry was Caanberra, the first syllable is long - phonetically Karnberra'. Surveyor- general Major Thomas Mitchell used 'Canberry' on his map of 1834, and 'Canberra' was used in the diocesan register for 1857 and that spelling has been used since." Local Aboriginals, asked in 1913, didn't know its origin. "One suggested the original name was 'Go-Yang-berra' and was the sacred ground for holding the Boya ceremony, an initiation ceremony for boys." Another said it meant 'woman's breasts' - Black Mountain and Mt Ainslie like the breasts of a recumbent woman.
I think this is enough to justify a brief mention in the article. McKay (talk) 09:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I thought the two mountains in question are Mt Ainslie and Mt Majura - just look from the O'Connor Ridge across the Canberra valley to see why. --Chaleyer61 (talk) 09:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it is also incorrect to state in the article that the word Canberra "is derived from" as a fact without citing sources. I have never believed that Canberra/Canberry/Kamberry meant "meeting place" - it's just too convenient. And in particular the name "Canberry" is too similar to "Canterbury" to even believe that it had an indigenous origin. It would be better to say some believe this and others believe that. MartinL-585 (talk) 03:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I notice the wrong pronunciation has crept back again, if I'm interpreting the SquiggleText correctly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.113.232.179 (talk) 02:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Canberra, also spelt Kamberra, Kambra, Ngambri, Kamberri, is the name of the local aboriginal tribe, the Kamberri. Who spoke Walgalu. This same people are also known today as Ngunnawal due to a historical mistake. The Ngunawal language was spoken by Walaballooa who lived at Yass and Borrowa. The Canberra Plains were a coroborree ground of the Kamberri. For references see Ann Jackson-Nakano's genealogical studies that were commissioned by the ACT government and or go to www.ngambri.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.64.239 (talk) 11:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Page Protection

This article has been semiprotected since 8 September 2009.[4]98.203.142.17 (talk) 09:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Media - free to air TV in Canberra

The media section requires editing as the following is incorrect "....as well as four additional free-to-air digital services Prime HD, WIN HD, ABC2 and SBS News."

It should read "....as well as 11 additional free-to-air digital services Prime HD, 7Two, WIN HD, GO!, ABC HD, ABC2, ABC3, SBS HD, SBS 2, SBS News and One HD." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wormstrum (talk • contribs) 04:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Media section is correct as it states stations not channels. Bidgee (talk) 04:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC) I see what you mean, some how I completely missed it (Reason why I thought you were talking about the stations bit). Bidgee (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
SBS Two used to be called SBS News. Media section updated. MartinL-585 (talk) 05:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

150.203.230.8 is a nutter

150.203.230.8; as others stated: prove it. Canberra is a planned city. Compared to Sydney (for example) it is indeed a paradise and, as someone who has worked in property development (large scale residential and industrial) in three different states I can personally state that the ACT is viewed as a great example good planning at a city and suburb level. Like all other jurisdictions, there are the headaches of dealing with the bureaucracy but compared to NSW, it is a breeze as there is only ONE level of government to deal with. Pollution, what pollution? Congestion, what congestion? Crime, maybe worth a mention with comparative crime rates to other capitals in Australia. I suggest you take a deep breath and move on. "Balance" does not require the inclusion of false-hoods. 121.79.5.20 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC).

Article is false

This article continues to keep out any information that might lead people to think that Canberra is anything other than paradise. Other articles talk about problems with pollution, congestion, crime, and other negative things. Yet there is no mention of the widespread criticism of the town planning of Canberra that deliberately keeps evidence of human activity to a minimum - the place is known around the world as a town planning disaster, and an example of what not to do. Yet there is no mention of this, and deliberate attempts by the owners of this article to keep it out. The article is currently locked to prevent any balanced addition of content. 150.203.230.8 (talk) 07:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

For starters, if you want to keep going down this path, how about you register as a user. You mention "widespread criticism" and "Canberra is criticised all the time" so prove it. Here's my challenge: write a coherent section for inclusion in the Canberra article entitled "Criticism of Canberra" (or something similar) and post it on the talk page. Include your sources. But remember, just because you and others believe Canberra to be boring this doesn't make everything (or anything) else stated in the Canberra article as untrue which you claim.
If what you write meets the Wikipedia editorial guidelines, I'll be happy to post it myself. MartinL-585 (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

150.203.230.8; still waiting for you to respond to my comments from September 2009 (if you can) 121.79.5.20 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC).

Orphaned references in Canberra

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Canberra's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "s6":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This is now fixed. - Salamurai (talk) 23:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Urbanized area

How much of ACT/Canberra is urbanized? It's clear that the urban area takes up very little land in the territory and I'm sure this fact is worth noting somewhere in the beginning of the article. --Criticalthinker (talk) 07:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I had to do some research on this a few months ago, and now I wish I had retained my source! The Namadgi National Park's area covers about two thirds of the ACT, and about half of the remaining area is urban... but that needs a reference and I don't have time to find one! Trevar (talk) 01:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Main photo

I was wondering if a more relevant photo could be included in the initial section, such as the one in the article 'City, Australian Capital Territory'. Civic is the CBD of Canberra and a photo showing the skyline would be more in line with other pages relating to cities. Showing the Parliamentary axis only is like having the ANZAC bridge as the main photo for Sydney. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.13.31 (talk) 09:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be particularly difficult to find a skyline picture for Canberra, as we don't have the kind of skyline that other cities have. The picture that is up there today, looking down Anzac Avenue towards the Parliamentary Triangle, is probably one of the most iconic images of Canberra, but it is a particularly poor example. Could we find a better version of this image, perhaps? Trevar (talk) 01:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

is this really notable?

I personally think a large section should be dedicated to the problem of the growing public servce in canberra. There should also be a section for self help of people stuck in the public service with a hot line and help for finding alternative employment,and directions to mental health facilitys located around canberra so they can possibly attempt to fix their biggest flaws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.50.48.2 (talk) 00:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC) The Group of Amateur Theatre Organisations (GATO) maintains a website, OffPrompt, that provides a newsboard where the amateur theatre community communicate opportunities.Michellecrisp (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

comment removed --Matilda talk 03:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

i agree it would be very vauble if this was adddded in :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.107.115 (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Civic

The article uses the word Civic twice without defining what it means. I assume it's the name for the CBD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schnitzi (talk • contribs) 11:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the second reference links to its page. Of course, this being Wikipedia, the page is called City instead of Civic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.52.75 (talk) 09:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Canberra Recent Changes Camp

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leighblackall (talk • contribs) 02:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

The city has been acclaimed for its use of modernist architecture on a grand scale and for its somewhat utopian city plan. It has been criticized for the same reasons.

After a visit to Canberra, the French writer Simone de Beauvoir complained that all of its superquadras exuded "the same air of elegant monotony," and other observers have equated the city's large open lawns, plazas and fields to wastelands. As the city has matured, some of these have gained adornments, and many have been improved by landscaping, giving some observers a sense of "humanized" spaciousness. Although not fully accomplished, the "Australian utopia" has produced a city of relatively high quality of life, in which the citizens live in forested areas with sporting and leisure structure (the large parks) flanked by small commercial areas, bookstores and cafes; the city is famous for its cuisine and efficiency of transit.

Critics of Canberra's grand scale have characterized it as a modernist platonic fantasy about the future:

Nothing dates faster than people's fantasies about the future. This is what you get when perfectly decent, intelligent, and talented men start thinking in terms of space rather than place; and single rather than multiple meanings. It's what you get when you design for political aspirations rather than real human needs. You get miles of jerry-built platonic nowhere infested with Holdens. This, one may fervently hope, is the last experiment of its kind. The utopian buck stops here.

– Robert Hughes, The Shock of the New, Episode 4: Trouble in Utopia

No, not Canberra. Brasilia. Mostlyharmless (talk) 10:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Origin of name "Canbera"

Hey all, I rarely contribute to Wiki these days, but have just fleshed out the alternate origin for the name "Canberra", and suspect some people will be unhappy unless I explain why. I did so for a couple of reasons. First, the alternate explanation was not accurate or fair. John Gale did not say it meant "woman's breasts", he said it meant the much more poetic "hollow between a woman's breasts", referring the Sullivans Creek floodplain between Black Mountain and Mount Ainslie. Big difference --- the latter being far nicer and more poetic. Speaking of Gale, his account should be treated as being quite credible. Gale was interested in indigenous names for animals and places of the local region, and made genuine efforts to find them out and note them down. Remember, Gale very accurately recorded the name of Urayarra on the Murrumbidgee River (as in Urriara Crossing, bastardised spelling thanks to Australia Post) --- somewhere that really WAS a meeting place --- as 'come running', as in the place you come running to, to meet up and go into the mountains, when you got the word the bogong moths were ready to be eaten. The second reason is the additional information that supports Gale's claim. The original "Canberry" property on Acton peninsula is damn close to the Sullivans Creek floodplain purported to be called 'nganbra'. An online IATSIS document I looked at provided an alternate spelling of 'nganbira' which I think strengthens things even further --- how close is 'nganbira' and 'canbira'? Finally I saw an early map of the region, again online, by Major Mitchell, drafted by him in his role as Surveyor General for the colony. And yes, smack bang on the Sullivan Creek floodplain, immediately up from its confluence with the Molonglo River floodplain, Mitchell had the label 'nganbra'. To me, this is a pretty strong argument. Conversely, I feel the chances of the name Canberra originally meaning something that just happened to be amazingly appropriate and touchy feely for a modern day capital city with a parliament house --- i.e. "meeting place" --- are rather far-fetched. Regarding Major Mitchell's map, well typically I can't find it again now. Not sure if I saw it on the IATSIS website (think I might have) or somewhere else. I'll keep looking and put the link in when I find it again. Codman (talk) 02:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

An extra "TV channel"

For accuracy, I suppose it should be included in the media section along with the other free-to-air digital channels available to the region. Television 4 (TV4) which began broadcasting in September 2011 on channel 64. http://www.throng.com.au/digital-tv/what-channel-64-television-4-tv4-new-free-air-digital-channel-regional-nsw-vic-act-and-gold-coast — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJLumas (talk • contribs) 01:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 September 2012

There is a photo of Blundell's Cottage on this page. The caption however incorrectly calls it Blundells' Cottage.

121.45.163.138 (talk) 10:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

According to the National Capital Association the cottage is called Blundells Cottage. The possessive apostrophe appears to be incorrect, and I've removed this. Thanks for your comment. Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Canberra From Black Mountain Tower.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Canberra From Black Mountain Tower.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 12, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-03-12. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 18:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Canberra
A stitched panoramic view of Canberra, the capital city of Australia, as seen from the top of Black Mountain Tower. Among the many landmarks visible are (left-to-right) Mount Ainslie, Canberra International Airport (in the distance near the horizon), Australian National University (slightly below the city centre), and Lake Burley Griffin (centre-right).Photo: JJ Harrison
Archive – More featured pictures...
When was this picture taken ? It looks like about 1970 to me.Eregli bob (talk) 08:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Considering New Parliament house is completed, it looks well past past 1970. The picture's page states 2009. Nbound (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

"Location"

The distances in the infobox seem to be distances by road. The straight-line distances are much less. What is the point of this anyway? McKay (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that does seem pointless, especially as there's also a map showing where Canberra is located. Nick-D (talk) 06:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm generally not a fan on Infoboxes with their shallow one-liners (or one-worders!) to describe often much more complex situations, but Canberra's location is significant. The map doesn't have a scale, so only helps in a directional sense, not for distances. Will the template tolerate the addition of the words "by road", or similar? HiLo48 (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

How many Australian states?

The article says

Newspaper proprietor John Gale circulated a pamphlet titled 'Dalgety or Canberra: Which?' advocating Canberra to every member of the Commonwealth's seven States Parliaments.
(emphasis added)

There are only six Australian states. What is the seventh this refers to? Montalban (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

read Gale's article- six states plus federal Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 June 2013 - Local company references

Should or could the reference to Tower Software be updated to Hewlett-Packard or HP Software? The company was acquired by HP in 2008 as per the Wikipedia article. Thank you. 14.202.192.149 (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Question: Is the problem the phrase "independent software vendor" (my italics)? Rivertorch (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Done In the absence of further discussion, I've gone ahead and removed the word "independent". If that wasn't the issue, please reopen this request. Rivertorch (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Criticism

OK, the first of this is stuff that was censored by someone who can't handle criticism of Canberra. I'm putting it back. -

Who removed my edits? I made a legitimate point, and someone has censored me.

Canberra is criticised all the time, for being dull, lifeless, boring, unliveable. It's in the papers and well documented. This article fails to reflect that at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.230.8 (talk) 00:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The NPOV tag says "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." which is exactly right. I dispute the neutrality of this page because it doesn't talk at all about popular opinion about Canberra, or criticisms of the city. It's not a neutral page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.230.8 (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you blind? "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." 150.203.230.8 (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page.

This is what I was going to put on the Canberra page, but now I've been censored.

"you're the only one to have the issue which is clearly your POV" Rubbish. See these articles? Are they my opinions? No, they're the opinions of Australia. [5] [6] [7] [8]

Even the Chief Minister of Canberra admits people think Canberra is boring http://www.abc.net.au/news/items/200507/1425180.htm?act 150.203.230.8 (talk) 03:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Further censorship:

It appears even my critical comments about the article Canberra have disappeared down the memory hole. Not only are you not allowed express that half of Australia has the "wrong" opinion about Canberra, any trace of having expressed that opinion has disappeared. And they have the nerve to say that I'm the one acting inappropriately.150.203.230.8 (talk) 03:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

New references, not included above.

Bill Bryson, A Sunburned Country - "after a minute's thought, wrote, "Canberra awfully boring place. Beer cold, though" [9]

Margo Dal, Rough Guide to Australia - It hasn't succeeded yet: most Australians still regard Canberra as "pollie city" — a frosty, boring place where politicians and public servants live it up [10]

Howard Simpson - When we'd arrived in Australia's capital, I'd discounted the complaints from diplomatic colleagues that Canberra was boring. Now, after two years, I was moving to their way of thinking. [11]

Frommer's Australia 2006 - Actually, the city isn't quite as boring as the rest of Australia thinks, nor as lively as the citizens of Canberra would have you believe. [12]

Careers @gov.au - It is often said that public service jobs would be great if they weren't in Canberra, which a lot of people think is a boring, lifeless city with nothing to do. [13]


Ben Wright, Michael Patrick Shiels, Good Bounces and Bad Lies - Canberra, a nice enough city, is a boring place when compared to Sydney, Perth, and even Adelaide. [14]

Andrew J. Farrara, Around the World in 220 Days: The Odyssey of an American Traveler Abroad - Canberra has been criticized as being artificial, sterile and utterly boring. Many people work here during the week and get away for the weekend [15]

Stephen Page, Colin Michael Hall, Managing urban tourism The Territory government also have to overcome the various negative images of Canberra that have built up in Australia as being 'full of public servants and politicians, boring, [closed] on Sundays, hard to get around with too many roundabouts, [and] cold... [16]

The Round table, Volumes 67-68 - Canberra was to be made, quite deliberately, a rather boring place [17]

The bulletin, Issues 6585-6593 "Canberra at night looks more funereal than the memorial itself." So much of Canberra, he writes, is "lifeless chunks of stone in the middle of nothing"

OK, I think I've proved my point. Censor that! with all of this, we can debate whether it is a boring city or not. That's a matter of personal opinion. But what cannot be denied is that it has a reputation among many Australians as boring, many visitors find it boring, and at least some people who live there find it boring.

Also, someone who removed my NPOV tag said that I'm the only one who has this issue with the page. If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Canberra/Archive_4#A_balanced_view you'll find someone saying that this article reads like a PR brochure, with no mention of any problems this city might have. If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Canberra/Archive_4#Missed_the_vibe you'll see other people have agreed with me. They even said that it should be fairly easy to establish from newspapers and books. Which it is - there are just people on this page who don't want anything bad written about the city they love, and are willing to censor it out. 150.203.230.8 (talk) 08:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Those criticisms are POV's and you've also misquoted some of those books. I find it rather strange that you have ago at the NPOV of this article when Sydney (Though doesn't get the boring and dull criticism, it does have criticisms) and Melbourne (Called dull and gloomy) have the same if not more positive content but why aren't they added? because it's POV's. You have also misquoted those archived comments which are from 2006/2007, last time I looked it's almost 2010. Bidgee (talk) 09:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Of course they are opinions! That is the point! I am just trying to get people to acknowledge that Canberra has a reputation that it is boring. Wikipedia doesn't have to say that they are right or wrong, just that some people think that. 150.203.230.8 (talk) 09:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

And they're from 2006 and 2007? Well, at least you agree that I'm not the only one to look at the page and think it looks like a PR brochure. 150.203.230.8 (talk) 09:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Point of views (IE: Opinions) do not belong in the article and that is the reason why they've not been added, Nothing states that Canberra the a fun, exciting and energetic city nor should it state Canberra is a dull, cold and boring city. 2006 and 2007 comments are hardly valid as the article was in a different state some 2 to 3 years ago. Bidgee (talk) 09:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Utter rubbish, Bidgee. Look at any city article you can think of. Bangkok, Wellington, Melbourne. You'll find criticism of their urban design. Because they're not perfect. A very useful comparison is with Brasilia. There is criticism of the city there, quite extensive, including quotes from people who thought the city had faults, for the same reasons that people criticise Canberra. Should I go over to that article and remove the criticism?

And then you you get this - "Nevertheless, Canberra stands as an exemplary city design and is located halfway between the ski slopes and the beach. It enjoys a natural cooling from geophysical factors." Well, as should be quite obvious, not everyone agrees that it is "exemplary". If you're going to have this, then you should include at least a line that expresses that its design has been criticised.

Either you don't want these well documented facts (that people have criticised the city IS a fact) here here, or you've decided that the article, like Canberra, is just perfect. 150.203.230.8 (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I laugh at your suggestion that Melbourne is known as dull and gloomy. It has a reputation for bad weather ("four seasons in one day"), but it does not have a reputation for being dull, but instead having a vibrant nightlife and cafe culture. It has serious issues with sprawl affecting the liveability of the city, and the article mentions that. 150.203.230.8 (talk) 10:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It's clear you have a point of view on Canberra being dull and boring and yet you go and slap a NPOV on the article? Canberra being dull and boring has nothing to do with its design or architecture. However I do feel that the beaches shouldn't be in the article but since Canberra is located on the Great Dividing Range and the nearest capital to the Snowies that the distances from the nearest ski fields could be added.
Melbourne's vibrant nightlife is irrelevance and would belong on travel wiki then here on Wikipedia. and never heard of Melbourne being call dull and gloomy[18] or called Melboring[19]? I'm not saying that it should be added to the Melbourne article but rather trying to display why POV's do not belong in the article or any other article on Wikipedia. Bidgee (talk) 10:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

That paper doesn't say what you think it does. It talks about rock _history_, about the 70s and 80s, when Melbourne was as dull as dishwater. I agree with you. And if the Melbourne article was written 20 years ago you might have a point. The great majority of references I gave are from the last five years.

Same with "Melboring". You won't find any recent books calling it that [20] [21] Hell, you'll hardly find any at all. Just compare that with Canberra. http://books.google.com.au/books?q=Canberra+boring&btnG=Search+Books

It looks like you've decided what can and can't be written here, you've made up your mind I'm wrong, and since you're going to delete whatever I write, I'm off. Have writing an article about an imaginary city that is never criticised! 150.203.230.8 (talk) 10:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, as a proud Canberra resident with an interest in this article, I'm going to go out on a limb and support the anon IP on this issue to an extent. I do feel the article has a slightly laudatory tone. I'm uncomfortable with the tone of this for example: "Canberra has numerous sporting ovals, golf courses, skate parks, tennis courts and swimming pools that are open to the public. A Canberra-wide series of bicycle paths are available to cyclists for recreational and sporting purposes. Canberra Nature Parks have a large range of walking paths, horse and mountain bike trails. Water sports like sailing, rowing and water skiing are popular activities on Canberra's lakes." The more so when checking the only reference that supports these sentences, which is NCA tourism promotion, and appears lake-related only. I also think some of the enduring criticism of Canberra - from Bill Bryson's humorous remarks to the implication of the ACT's campaign to re-make its image in order to attract skilled employees - is notable within the meaning of that term at Wikipedia. However, can I also say to anon IP: that a POV tag on the whole article wasn't the right way to go about this for a WP Feature Article. Discussion on the talk page amongst editors is best, and judicious edits - for example in the culture section - substantiated with reliable source references - would be the way to go. I think you've done a lot of the hard work to put this stuff together, and it may be that a sentence or two in the culture section may be effective. I'll be interested to hear other views. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't support any mention of Canberra being boring for the following reasons: (a) its a POV (b) in my POV (as someone who has lived in London, Paris, New York, Singapore, KL, Port Moresby, Sydney, Perth and Canberra) it is not boring and (c) the majority of 'sources' for those criticisms come from non-Canberra residents. Finally, and most importantly (D) - a POV judgement about the vibrancy of a city is not the role and scope of Wikipedia, that is a travel wiki issue as pointed out previously. So, I disagree with the anon IP editor and think the article is fine and balanced the way it is. 121.79.5.20 (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Also, several of the sources cited by the anon IP editor actually talk about the falsity of the reputation after they mention "boring" and "canberra" together. This is very amateur mistake to make by what is obviously a first-time wiki editor. Just searching for the two terms and finding them doesn't mean that article or book supports that view. A a single example: in the "Rough guide to Australia" By Margo Daly after the two search terms are mentioned, a couple of pages later is this: "Canberra's night life is also a great deal better than you might expect considering its reputation". This just reinforces the point i made above: the 'reputation' of Canberra is nothing more than POV held (mostly) by people who haven't lived there or have never visited. Here is another POV for you: Sydney is a hole of a city that should be bull-dozed and rebuilt from scratch and Melbourne is a waste of good farmland. Can we put those in the respective Sydney and Melbourne articles? I mean we have to BALANCE them, right? 121.79.5.20 (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoever referred to Canberra as a "cold city" is pretty ignorant/stupid/naive or a combination. Canberra may be cold by Australian standards but it certainly isn't that cold in comparison to international cities, particularly those in the Eastern and Midwestern US, Canada or Europe. In fact, cities there can often reach daily lows of -15 and nightly lows of -25. So lets not whinge and waste our electricity this winter fellow Australians, because comparatively, we have a very warm winter nationwide. Ashton 29 (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Image for utilities

Image 1
Image 2

We already have a photo of the Telsrra Tower in the info box, so I'm not sure why it's repeated in the Utilities section. Surely there is another utilities related illustration that could be used. For the time been, does anyone have a preference between these two images? I find the first image to be rather ugly, as it is a very unattractive tower, as well as being far too similar to the image already used in the info box montage and the second to be less harsh, and more interesting, in its aesthetic appearance. It almost makes the tower look pleasant. Ashton 29 (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Right, the only reason you want to use files you've selected to be uploaded, was because you've promised the author to have it on Wikipedia. Golden rule, never make promises that you're unlikely to keep. We don't select photographs for pure aesthetics, and I don't see how the moon behind the tower is relevant. Also your argument is a hypocrisy comment, you say it is already used in the article's infobox image, which is not correct (images used are both different) and you then state that the tower is "very unattractive" but you replace it with the same tower, just with a distracting moon in the back ground.
While the tower has significance in the history of Canberra and plays a role with the utilities in the city. I would prefer something that has a little more of a relationship to the section, which is the solar farms (wind farms are located outside the ACT) located within the ACT or even one of the dams that play a role in Canberra's water supply. Bidgee (talk) 11:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Bidgee: the second image is pretty, but it's basically useless in an encyclopaedia where the emphasis should be on images which clearly depict their subject. Having the moon in the background looks gimmicky and is not helpful to our readers. Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Nick-D, I value your constructive response and friendly candour. What about these two (Cotter Dam or Corin Dam aerial) in favour of the Telstra Tower (as we already have a photo if it in the info box)? Ashton 29 (talk) 12:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I took a couple of shots of the solar farm today, although it is difficult to get a good angle and they chase you off.--Grahame (talk) 07:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind "Royalla Solar Farm 3.JPG". Could've loaned you my 55-250mm Canon EF-S lens, would make it easier to get close-ups. Though shame they chased you away! Bidgee (talk) 02:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Well I forgot to take my telescopic lens with me (and intending the trip mainly for reconnoitering). The picture could be cut down anyway, although there is the question whether a picture on a sunnier day might be preferable.--Grahame (talk) 03:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I would prefer a sunny photo but if you can't get one for whatever reason, I don't have an issue if "Royalla Solar Farm 3.JPG" is selected. Bidgee (talk) 10:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
So, can "Royalla Solar Farm 3" be used? It's certainly a better choice than the Telstra Tower. Ashton 29 (talk) 10:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Royalla Solar Farm 4 and Royalla Solar Farm 5 are sunnier, also some new Cotter Dam pictures.--Grahame (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Canberra's climate

Canberra's climate may be regarded as a "continental climate" in Australia, but according to the climate charts it does have a temperate climate, more exactly an oceanic climate (Köppen climate classification: Cfb), due to the fairly evenly distributed annual rainfall and temperature range. Nor is it with its moderate annual rainfall of 615 mm "dry" or even semi-arid. Canberra does not qualify at all as a continental climate, because in the winter months the average daily temperatures above 10 °C are much too high, and the average nightly temperatures are above the required of -3 °C. Although Canberra has certainly not a "typical" oceanic climate, because its inland location and relatively high attitude, are the reasons for its hot summers (higher than is usual in oceanic climates in general) and "cold" winters and the wide temperature range between its distinct seasons (which is also not usual in oceanic climates) and between day and night (Also despite the high daily summer temperatures, the low nightly summer temperatures prevents the climate from being classified as humid subtropical). That is why for climates influenced by these geographical features like Canberra, the correct term that should be put before its corrected climate type is the weather feature continentality which do affect many climate types, and not just continetal climates. This wrong and misleading categorization should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.104.134.179 (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source and verifiable source that states this, rather then what a climate chart may show? All you have said is original research. The BoM (a reliable source) states that it has a "continental climate". Bidgee (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Australians may have a different understanding about a "continental climate" and may consider the climate of Canberra "harsh" by their standarts. But it does not change the fact that according to Köppen classification system that Canberra has indeed an oceanic climate. The climate of Canberra is too mild to be classified as a continental climate, and is incorrect. Cities with true continental climate are for example, Chicago, Montréal, Moscow, Ankara or Yerevan, but definately not Canberra. Please see the climate articles and sources on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.104.134.179 (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Are you saying that Australia's Bureau of Meteorology. a major member of the World Meteorological Organisation, is an unreliable source? HiLo48 (talk) 02:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
The anonymous user is actually right, as according to Köppen classification, Canberra, has indeed an oceanic climate, all its annual precipitation patterns and seasonal temperatures fit to this climate type, but it does not fit into that of a continental climate, especially because of the higher winter temperatures. The winter temperatures do not meet the required minimums according to Köppen classification for the climate to be classified as continental. Saguamundi (talk) 04:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
That's a very frustrating post, in that it totally ignores the comment it immediately succeeded. This is called Discussion, not "Pretend that posts I don't like don't exist". HiLo48 (talk) 05:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
BoM again is very reliable, it isn't a personal site or someone's POV. Saguamundi's comment is really their own interpretation of climates and not fact from a reliable (text based) source, I don't know how many times it needs to be repeated here. Bidgee (talk) 06:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

This map, which has a high quality source indicated, shows Canberra to have climate type Cfb (temperate oceanic). So that is how to get "oceanic climate" into the article. However the Bureau of Meteorology's status is sufficiently high that its version should be noted as well. Perhaps they are using some other definitions. McKay (talk) 05:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

While it is a large map it data is in fact low resolution, the map should only be used as a guide and not a source (text from a reliable source is far more reliable then OR based on a map). Bidgee (talk) 06:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The Canberra Bureau of Meteorology, the source for the supposed claim that Canberra has a continental climate, basically disclaims that very label by qualifying what they said as being '..at least for Australian standards.' Canberra has a very boring, but nice, subtropical climate. This debate is stupid (even by Australian standards). Canberra has a very boring, but nice, subtropical climate. Somebody correct and edit the climate section! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.99.79 (talk) 23:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I do agree that BoM is very reliable. However there is no reason to get the Koppen classification omitted. Just adding it does not mean that BoM is not reliable.霎起林野间 (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

"and the average nightly temperatures are above the required -3 °C" Forgive my ignorance, but I thought Canberra regularly recorded night time temperatures below -3°C? What are the actual average nightly temps if this is not the case? Ashton 29 (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

According to Köppen climate classification, what matters is not average night time temporature, but the coldest month average. Canberra is certainly under an oceanic climate according to this. 2001:CE0:2201:880C:827:1577:F47B:4ABB (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
It is fact (not opinion) that Canberra has an oceanic climate, not a continental one. A feature of continental climate is weeks, if not months, of snow cover during a typical winter. Chicago, Calgary, Minsk and Moscow are examples of cities with continental climates. The source 'backing' the statement that Canberra has a continental climate claims the climate is continental by Australian standards. No major Australian city has a continental climate. This is a world encyclopedia. We do not compare only to other cities in the same country, otherwise we would have to describe Reykjavik's climate as warm, because it is warm by Icelandic standards. I cannot imagine even an Icelander would seriously claim that our article on Reykjavik should state that it has a warm climate. Another comment in this section says that Canberra has a subtropical climate - this is also untrue by the Koeppen climate classification, the most commonly used climate system in the world. Canberra's climate is not a typical oceanic climate (such as that of Dublin, London or Paris) because of its large daily temperature variation in every month, but it still easily fits the criteria of it. Even if the coldest month were five degrees celcius/nine fahrenheit colder, it would still have an oceanic climate; it is a long way from the boundary of a continental climate. In Australia, only some high altitude locations have continental climates. Jim Michael (talk) 12:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Limestone Plains

This is probably best merged into Canberra. It's part of the history of the city, however, it's not notable enough to stand alone. Mattwheatley (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Biased

This article is biased and inaccurate. Compare it to the article for Brasilia, which is much better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.152.114.160 (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Canberra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Please update to Infobox settlement

This page uses Infobox Australian place. Wouldn't it be better if it used Infobox settlement instead? - VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

No, we use Infobox Australian place for Australian towns.--Grahame (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit request 30 Jan 2016 - add wiki page link to Marion Mahony Griffin

In the section: History>Decisions to start and locate a capital https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Mahony_Griffin is not linked to her page. In the introduction, along with her husband Walter Burley Griffin, she has a page link. However, in this section Walter has a link, but Marion does not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkbrangan (talk • contribs) 05:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Done have removed his link. Cannolis (talk) 07:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Canberra. 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) 03:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Canberra

why the Coat of arms of Canberra is not present and neither mentioned (with link to related wiki page)? --37.176.64.229 (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2017

To the "Transport" section, please add:

From 20 March 2017, ACTION buses began operating regular services to Canberra Airport's passenger terminal from the city. This service provides 64 services each week day, 26 services on a Saturday and 24 on Sundays between the terminal and the city.

A link to the new timetable is: https://www.canberraairport.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Route-11_11A-time-table.pdf Canberra Airport (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

You have included this info in the Canberra Airport article as is appropriate.--Grahame (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Canberra. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 01:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2017

Canberra's population is 398,300[1] currently says population is 381,488 Germaine Muller (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

 Not done, that source gives 398,300 as the figure for the Australian Capital Territory, a larger area encompassing Canberra and other urban areas, so Canberra's population will be lower than 398,300. — Quasar G. 23:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
2016 census info will be available on 27/6/2017.--Grahame (talk) 05:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/BCDDE4F49C8A3D1ECA257B8F00126F77?Opendocument

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Canberra. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 04:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2017

Update image regarding ACTION buses. Current image is of an old, and soon to be retired Renault PR100.2 model, and is not reflective of the public transport network used in Canberra today. I would suggest the use of one of the new, blue Transport Canberra livery Scania-K320UB Bustech VST buses. Linked below is an appropriate replacement image.

https://www.act.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0004/1099939/Gungahlin-bus-station-slider.jpg

This Canberra Times reference confirms the phasing out of the orange livery ACTION buses, an image of which is currently used in this article, and the introduction of a new blue Transport Canberra livery for new buses. http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/new-action-buses-to-be-blue-light-rail-trams-to-be-red-20161214-gtbhgk.html Gneruoa (talk) 04:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: Please ensure that the image provided can be used under free use. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 06:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Canberra. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 10:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Canberra. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 08:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Canberra. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 07:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Canberra. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 18:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2018

There is an "as at January" that should be "as of January" 2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 08:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 12:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Source #2

Maybe I'm missing something, but the second source of the article, which is meant to be a source for the elevation of the city, links to some crazy Spanish website which doesn't mention Canberra, let alone elevation. This article is a featured article, and the source has been in place (based on its access date) for 2 years now, am I missing something? JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 13:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

You're not missing anything. You were absolutely right. Nobody else noticed, nor did they read your comment, for nine months! I fixed it. Thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 11:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit re Actew

The section on ActewAgl etc is out of date. Actewagl is a joint venture with icon water (Govt owned), Jemina, AGL. It doesn’t do water any more. I think transact has changed too. The page currently says 'The government-owned ACTEW Corporation manages Canberra's water and sewerage infrastructure.[312] ActewAGL is a joint venture between ACTEW and AGL, and is the retail provider of Canberra's utility services including water, natural gas, electricity, and also some telecommunications services via a subsidiary TransACT.[313]' Mattturtles (talk) 08:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Concise history

1908 The site of (future) Canberra was selected

1911 NSW officially cedes the land, (future) ACT created

1913 Canberra named, and founded

1927 Became capital

Agree? MBG02 (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Who the hell says "/kænˈbɛrə/"? As far as I can tell, it's only folk from outside Australia who haven't yet learnt to say it properly. I'm not from Canberra, or even Australia, but I have visited that country's illustrious (?) capital, and it seemed clear to me that everyone there said "/ˈkænbərə/", or perhaps "/ˈkænbrə/". Where did this "/kænˈbɛrə/" business come from? Is that actually considered a correct pronunciation? Kelisi (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

When I was young many Australians from outside Canberra said "/kænˈbɛrə/", but you are right that this has generally died out. Apparently in 1913 there was controversy about which pronunciation to use and it was decided to use the pronunciation used by Lady Denman, when she announced it, although only her stress pattern has been retained, not her southern English vowels. She presumably had heard the pronunciation already.--Grahame (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Really? I guess it really has died out. I don't think I've ever heard an Australian say it that way. I guess it will have to stand, though, until some source says that it is strictly "/ˈkænbərə/". Ottawa, my country's illustrious (?) capital, has a similar problem, but I think the former pronunciation shown there is popularly favoured, whereas the latter enjoys mostly official sanction. Kelisi (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I've lived in Canberra for 32 years. The locals say "/ˈkænbrə/" when talking at a normal speed and "/ˈkænbərə/" if they are talking really slowly. Someone who says "/kænˈbɛrə/" identifies themself as not from around here and probably not from Australia. As for sources, I can't check the Macquarie ABC Dictionary easily, but my printed 1985 edition of the Macquarie Dictionary and the current edition online at the National Library both agree with me, so I'm changing it. McKay (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Note that when the Macquarie ABC Dictionary was first added in 2009, the article said "/ˈkænbrə/" and "/ˈkænbərə/". The wrong pronunciation was later added by someone else without comment. McKay (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
That "someone else" would seem to be the Man in Question, whose userpage seems to suggest that he is an American of Hungarian origin. A userbox declares that he uses American English. Nowhere does he state that he has even been to Australia. I have visited three times and only felt qualified to pose the question above. Grahame, McKay, if you're both Australian, I'd say that much more strongly qualifies you to say how Canberra should be pronounced. Kelisi (talk) 05:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for linking me. Written sources: American Heritage Dictionary, Oxford English Dictionary, Merriam–Webster, and Dictionary.com all give /ˈkænˌbɛrə/ (though not /ˌkænˈbɛrə/) as a pronunciation. I don't hold any strong feelings that the IPA must be kept, but that's certainly how it's pronounced in the United States. — the Man in Question (in question) 05:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
No one seems to be objecting to the wrong pronunciation being removed, and yet there it still is... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.76.74 (talk) 11:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
As a true-blue Canberran, I can say with 30 years' experience living and working in Canberra that Kelisi is correct. Most Canberrans (and I would suggest most Australians) would say "/ˈkænbrə/ in general conversation and would only use the longer version /ˌkænˈbɛrə/ when speaking more formally e.g. in speeches, radio and TV news readers etc.--Chewings72 (talk) 06:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, if it is in formal Australian use, as you suggest, then it would count as a pronunciation, even if a secondary one. — the Man in Question (in question) 06:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
So keep the two pronunciations as is currently the case?--Chewings72 (talk) 07:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I have lived here for 62 years and my father lived here in the 1930s. I completely disagree that /ˌkænˈbɛrə/ is used as a formal pronunciation. It is certainly not used by locals or visiting Australian politicians, although it is used by comedians.--Grahame (talk) 10:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
So you're saying that /ˌkænˈbɛrə/ is a jocular pronunciation? Kelisi (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
That's where I've heard it most often. The pronunciation with the "e" not pronounced was declared the official pronunciation in 1913 and was already the normal pronunciation then.--Grahame (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Grahamec - I am curious about this 1913 "official pronunciation". Have you a got a source for that? From my own observations, I still think we should retain both versions of the pronunciation in the article lede.--Chewings72 (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
It is certainly well known in Canberra that the officials had decided to adopt Lady Dedman's pronunciation to resolve the issue and this is the main reason why there is only one accepted pronunciation within Canberra. I doubt if there was ever an official statement on the issue. I don't mind the foreign pronunciation staying there as a secondary pronunciation.--Grahame (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't read the squiggle text, but it's "Can-bra".. that's it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.139.209 (talk) 06:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


Who the hell says "/kænˈbɛrə/"? I think most Americans do. Anything wrong with having an Aussie (and most-of-the-world) IPA, and an American IPA? MBG02 (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Well yes, there is. When do we decide that someone's mistake becomes acceptable? When that someone is American? HiLo48 (talk) 00:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Dunno. I was expecting a link to a (long) Wiki guideline.
NB: It’s not some"one". Cairns, Qld; Forster, NSW; useful examples? When in Roma…? MBG02 (talk) 02:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry. I don't understand what point you're making there. HiLo48 (talk) 03:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit Request 15 November 2018

Is it possible to include a reference to the Spilt Milk festival under Arts and Entertainment? Given its size and popularity I think it's worth mentioning. I have a new account and I'm not able to update it myself. Rattyyyy (talk) 05:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2019

Update to public transport in Canberra. A light rail network has been constructed in Canberra, opening in 2019.

https://www.transport.act.gov.au/about-us/public-transport-options/light-rail/light-rail-network 137.92.217.80 (talk) 03:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 13:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2019

I want to add a note regarding the Canberra station in Singapore MRT, including link to its Wikipedia page [Canberra MRT station]. - Cannot do this as page is semi-protected - Was thinking of adding this note and link as a new paragraph in section:Twin towns and sister cities - Was planning to start the note/link with text "In addition, there is a ..." JohnOhman (talk) 01:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done, partly because it's not clear what changes you want to make (you need to make an exact request so that others know precisely what you want to do), but also because this seems too trivial to mention. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canberra/Archive_5&oldid=1136590045"