Jump to content

Talk:Capricorn Coast

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

History section

[edit]

This section should, at the very least, be expanded to include Aboriginal settlement, European exploration and the first industries that were developed in the region. - Shiftchange (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates

[edit]

If anyone knows how to remove the coordinates from above the info box it would be appreciated if you do so, as it's a replication of what's in the info box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XavierT3000 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We display the coordinates both inline and in the tile bar deliberately. It's pretty much standard all over Wikipedia. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Have to say it's an odd policy though. XavierT3000 (talk) 13:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Not every article has an infobox, so the coordinates are generally placed in the title bar. The infobox is a summary of content from the article and, since the coordinates are part of the article, including them in the infobox is appropriate. It just works out that articles with infoboxes have the coords in two places. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Ideas

[edit]

I'd appreciate input for the best way to continue adding content to this page while it's live as I find myself wasting time dealing with problems that are only problems due to the work being readily critiquable before it's even finished. It's very demotivating. I thought newpage would be an option, but not. I looked into using a subpage but apparently that's not suited to editing an established page either. Do users normally repair old pages in notepad or the like then paste it into the wiki page when it's complete? Or alternatively, is there a snippet that's used to indicate that a section is being edited? What is the normal practice? XavierT3000 (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is how a wiki works, changes can and do occur at any time by anyone. I know edit conflicts can be annoying. Try one of the templates, maybe the 3rd or 4th one might help. Also instead of being demotivated, turn it around and take inspiration from other Wikipedians edits by learning from them. - Shiftchange (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you AussieLegend, that Under Construction tag is a help. XavierT3000 (talk) 00:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Twas Fun

[edit]

OK, I'm walking away from this now. It's all I have time or patience for, and I have other projects to pursue. Good luck to whoever finishes the sections. If you need help with reference material, Google my user name without the numbers and you'll find me top of the page. Thanks everyone for their assistance during my week on Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XavierT3000 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a new Catholic primary school at Pacific Heights, Yeppoon - St Benedicts

File:Iwasaki-JohBjelke1979.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Iwasaki-JohBjelke1979.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Politics

[edit]

Disappointing to see the deletion of political content by an infrequent editor on very weak grounds, suspiciously close to the local and state elections. Cited grounds were irrelevance ???? The prospect of de-amalgamation of local council seems pretty relevant to me under the heading of governance, and the politicians and their actions involved in that proposed process are just as relevant. This deletion was at best pettiness, at worst the self-serving subterfuge of a political lackey of one of those people mentioned. This nonsense is why people stop contributing content to Wikipedia. XavierT3000 (talk) 03:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Capricorn Coast. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Capricorn Coast is well-defined

[edit]

Contrary to what the article used to say, the Capricorn Coast is very well-defined and has been so since 1969 (see coords and citations now in the article). However, this official definition is very much more limited than the definition which was assumed in craft a lot of the content in the article. This means a lot of the geography is out of scope (especially the sub-regions). The problem isn't as bad in the history section, as the settlement of Rockhampton area, the Mount Chalmers mine, while outside of the geographic scope are the pre-cursors to the settlement of the Capricorn Coast. I am tempted to suggest that a lot of the geographic material might be transferred to the Shire of Livingstone article, since that shire was re-established in 2014. What do others think? Kerry (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOLD ^_^ Pretty sure I'm responsible for at least part of the original entry's lack of sources ZayZayEM (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re the definition of Capricorn Coast, this argument has been going on for 7 years. Fair comment re its govt definition, however back in 2011 when I wrote this page, it wasn't acceptable to fall back on that definition because there were other perceived definitions. The Wikipedia editors of the day informed me that I had to include every possible definition of the Capricorn Coast or otherwise create disambiguation pages for each, hence the unwieldy preamble which has since been deleted. Re the geography etc, this had to be modified for that same reason to include the inland townships like Cawarral, Byfield, Tungamull etc, which I was fine with because they are part of the Capricorn Coast in reality. It's great that you've taken a stance and probably think we're all a bit dopey for not knowing the obvious, but there are a couple of problems with the cut-the-guts-out approach. First, given that Waterpark Creek is defined as the northern boundary, and that it is only a minor tributary that flows into Corio Bay, should all mention of the bay have been erased from the page? Also erased at some point, Sandy Point is the northernmost stretch of coast which lies between Farnborough Beach and Waterpark Creek. But it's gone too. Meanwhile, contributions made last year by a tourism body include references to Shoalwater Bay etc which lie 50 odd kms north of Waterpark Creek, yet that remains. Another contributor added Byfield which Waterpark Creek runs past, but that was deleted by an editor because it was inland, yet far south of Shoalwater Bay. On that basis, should we also cut out Taroombal, Tanby, Bungundarra, Taranganba and a lot more that aren't physically on the coast either? Down to the southern end, using the same logic, should we really mention Thompson's Point as it's quite a way up the Fitzroy River? It's not that much further up until you hit Rockhampton. Rundle's Beach or Long Beach, just north of the Fitzroy River mouth, would seem more appropriate. If we are to include Thompson's Point, then on the same basis, we should include Cawarral and Coowonga which Coorooman Creek run past, and Byfield. In reality, the Capricorn Coast actually ISN'T well defined. It is not a mere strip of sand as the govt definition describes. This will need more thrashing out, but I will add that while we had the long preamble bit - while ugly and clunky and it pained me to write every word of it - we had none of this confusion. The page 7 years ago along with the map I made up for the page - which has also been deleted - made a lot more sense than it does now.--XavierT3000 (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little bit confused by all this. Having been around for a while, I do tend to check for "contentious issues" before jumping in. You say there's been an argument going on for 7 years over the definition of the Capricorn Coast and suggest that a number of other editors were requesting every possible definition be included. If so, I'm afraid I never saw it. There's been no discussion on this Talk page (which is the primary place to discuss this article) about the definition of the Capricorn Coast until my post above on April 2017. I realise sometimes such discussions can take place via commentary in edit summaries or on User Talk pages, but I can't see anything in the history of the edit summaries that raise the definition issue, nor on your User Talk page and nor do you appear to have contributed to such a discussion on any other user's talk page. I just checked now for any discussions on the Australian Wikipedian's Noticeboard in case the discussion took place there and found these three mentions of the Capricorn Coast but none of them addressed the definitional issue. Nor is there any discussion about the Capricorn Coast on WikiProject Queensland's talk page. So can you please point me at the discussion so I can be fully informed of the issues raised? Thanks Kerry (talk) 01:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding. The core of the debate took part in a single 24 hour period from 21:37 23 December 2011 to 12:06 24 December 2011. It is all recorded in the edit history for Capricorn Coast page between myself and user ShiftChange. Apparently neither of us had much to do that Christmas :) XavierT3000 (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pointer. I see that the argument boils down to this one edit in which Shiftchange notes (correctly) that the claim that "While the Capricorn Coast has no exact geographic boundaries ..." is uncited and then, presumably trying to find a citation, looks at a book he has available to him (a Lonely Planet guidebook) where he finds that Gladstone, Agnes Water etc are in the chapter on the Capricorn Coast in that book. I don't see any discussion or consensus that all definitions, nor any suggestion that "it wasn't acceptable to fall back on that [government] definition" as I cannot see anyone even putting forward the government definition. I do note that in a subsequent edit, you removed Shiftchange's citation-needed in relation to "no exact geographic boundaries" and strengthened the claim to say explicitly that there were "no registered geographic boundaries". I don't know why you said that but presumably you believed it to be true. But I think we can now agree that Capricorn Coast does (and did at 2011) have a registered definition. I don't see a problem adding that some people use the term loosely to encompass a broader area (suitably cited) by way of explanation to any readers who may have arrived at the article with such a pre-conception, but I don't see any value in incorporating too much information about those places that are beyond the official definition in this article. Kerry (talk) 03:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I can work with just using the government definition pending a little more clarification (later). Back then I don't recall any direct reference being made to a government definition. In hindsight, my use of the word "acceptable" should have read "possible". Forgive this incorrect wording as I was clearly rambling on many points at 4am after hours of reading editing notes, for which I apologise if excessive. The reason for the "no registered geographic boundaries" claim was due to there being none available anywhere on the web, nor through Rockhampton Regional Council. What is on the government place names website now, wasn't back in 2011. Perhaps it wasn't a public searchable database at the time. We even went back through old newspapers via Trove/NLA for information but there was nothing authoritative. Anyway that's all behind us now so let's move on to ironing out the bugs of this definition, and I admit I'm struggling with it. You maintain that the region is "very well defined" and I'm just not seeing it. The govt definition states "the coastal area between the mouth of Water Park Creek and the mouth of the Fitzroy River". It also gives the geo as 22° 57' 42" S / 150° 46' 14" E. All good. But then on the Wikipedia page, it gives a range of co-ordinates and also names Farnborough and Thompson's Point as the boundaries. I don't know whether this information has come from more detailed info on the govt site which I can't access or whether it is just an arbitrary interpretation of the government's "very well defined" definition. The two definitions say different things and is definitely not well defined. Also, does the term "the coastal area" only mean areas directly abutting the coastline or is there a distance inland to be included? If so, what is that distance? If I can get a ruling on those two points of confusion, I can happily get out of everyone's hair and get stuck into editing/adding content. Many thanks. XavierT3000 (talk) 04:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Citation [1] tells us the names of the waterways whose mouths define the endpoints of the coastal area. Citation [2] and [3] are the official place name entries for those waterways, which give the mouth coordinates which appear in the article. The Farnborough to Thompson Point are just reading the names of the northern most and southern most localities based on those coordinates. Probably the Queensland Globe should be cited as that's where such information comes from (ditto the towns and localities list) - I just added them. My reading of it is that it is the coastline between the mouths. That's why we see the coord for Capricorn Coast as being very near the coast. If the intention was that it went further west, then the midpoint would be much further west. Constrast it with the definition of Whitsunday Coast which is defined to be the Shire of Prosperine (which of course no longer exists), but the midpoint is much further inland as one would expect if the whole of the shire is to be included. I think what you are asking is "is it defined by a boundary?" but the answer is that it is not (you would see the boundaries in the Qld Globe if it was). It is defined but not as bounded area like a suburb. Towns are defined in the same way, by a centrepoint but not with a boundary.Kerry (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. While I don't agree with how this article will evolve into something far removed from the common definitions of the Capricorn Coast, I can see the logic in using the government definition to remove ambiguity and risk of complaint from tourist bodies, Livingstone Shire etc, so it makes sense to continue on the path. With all of that in mind, I do maintain that Sandy Point (22° 57' 00" S / 150° 46' 00" E) should be regarded as the northernmost point and Rundle Beach (23° 30' 09" S / 150° 51' 28" E) the southernmost. Globe shows them clearly as places right at the waterway mouths which removes any suggestion that areas not abutting the shoreline be included. Agreed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XavierT3000 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Capricorn Coast. 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) 14:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Capricorn_Coast&oldid=1200625191"