Jump to content

Talk:Toowoomba

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Toowoomba, Queensland)

State of Article

[edit]

This article is in a sorry state. There is a section called "Festivals" that neglects to mention the AGMF? The section on food mentions only one restaurant? It is no wonder that it has received a "C-Class" quality grade. I suggest that the Wellington page be used as a template in an attempt to get this page to the "B-Class" quality. Puff Of Hot Air (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Energy

[edit]

Toowoomba and the Darling Downs were once significant in the energy scene - the coal mine at Acland and the GT on the southern side of town. Perhaps with the Surat Basin Coal Seam Gas / LNG boom, we might see some renewed interest. Other energy topics could include:

  • Toowoomba Electric Light was a forerunner for SEAQ
  • Head office of South West Power was Dalby, with a satellite office in Toowoomba

Graham Proud (talk) 13:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable People

[edit]

I have re-instated Notable People. The wonderful thing about Wikipedia is its democracy and that anyone can contribute. I would like to think that next time my grand-children get asked by their school teacher "Name some famous people who came from Toowoomba?" (or wherever), they will be able to look it up. I see Wikipedia as a living, growing thing and able to have the flexibility that the old concept of a print encyclopedia doesn't have. This means it isn't just a bunch of dry facts. And next time whoever removes something like that I suggest that they have the politeness to put their proposal up on the discussion page first. Terry Stacey —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terry Stacey (talk • contribs)

Terry - agreed. But why not include Frank Forde, a past Prime Minister and Minister for the Army during WWII? He attended the Christian Brothers College in Toowoomba and worked there for some time. It seems unfair that Toowoomba places so much emphasis on sport and ignores the fact that a one-time resident reached the highest office in the nation. He was born in or near Mitchell, but I notice that Rockhampton's page claims him. Surely his education in Toowoomba should be acknowledged. --Twmbaexpat (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woombie

[edit]

I have lived in Toowoomba for a significant part of my life. I have never, not once, heard anybody refer to it as "Woombie", unless they were under 3 years of age or retarded.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.134.111.194 (talk • contribs)

My sister (who doesn't live in Toowoomba) refers to it as Woombie all the time. Woombie is better than 't-bar'--Porjo (talk) 03:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Teams

[edit]

Maybe someone could edit in a few sports teams that play out of Toowoomba? I only know of the Toowoomba Clydesdales. Bongomanrae 06:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TV Stations

[edit]

What is "Channel Ross" I have never heard of it, and I've been living in "Woombie" since 1990 (FWIW Many students call it that). And just because we can pick up channels 7,9,10 from Brisbane doesn't mean it's a relay.

I think "Channel Ross" might be a gag. Web search all lead here or to cut & pastes from here! Some guy called Ross or his mate pulling our leg? I'll delete it: it can always be put back if I'm wrong.

WIN News is no longer recorded at all in Toowoomba, Mt Lofty Studios. 125.254.43.2 (talk) 09:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Name "Toowoomba"

[edit]

I thought I heard it was an aboriginal word meaning "place of swamp" or something similar. Can this be verified? If so, is it not worth a mention?--Jeff79 01:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The story I heard is that it was an Aboriginal rendering of the English name "The Swamp" coming out as "T'wamp" added with the Aboriginal prefix "bah" which I think means "place" thus "T'wamp bah". This was then rendered back into English as the assumed Aboriginal name as "Toowoomba". It sounds fairly convoluted, but not totally without merit. Needs a reliable source to confirm before it can be included, however. -- Mattinbgn\ talk 22:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how reliable this source is but it sums up the basic argument above. -- Mattinbgn\ talk 22:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A better source, with several derivations discussed can be found here. Mattinbgn\ talk 22:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has this been added to the article? Which section?--Jeff79 (talk) 06:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2nd largest inland city

[edit]

and the nation's second-largest inland city after Canberra, the national capital. is this correct? Aren't Rockhampton and Ipswich (just to use two Queensland cities) larger? Shot info 06:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer - see List of cities in Australia by population
Longer answer
By this Toowoomba is bigger than Rockhampton but smaller than Ipswich. The question then becomes; Is Ipswich a city in its own right or part of the Brisbane urban area. The ABS includes Ipswich in the Brisbane Statistical district. Also, what is the definition of inland? Brisbane itself is not quite on the coast, being 20km inland. Inland could mean west of the Great Dividing Range; in this case Toowoomba qualifies and Ipswich does not.
You are right though, as it stands it probably needs an explanatory note supporting that claim. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 06:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I might be being technical here but the citation used does not support the claim which centres around the term of "inland city". What exactly constitutes inland city ? I haven't been able to find a good definition of the term ... In addition, I believe the claim is based on population whereas use of the term largest implies area as well. According to Wikipedia there are a few cities which are larger in area. Bendigo apparently is a whopping 2998.97 km² (although I believe this is an incorrect reference to the LGA rather than the urban area). --Biatch (talk) 03:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, according to Ipswich, Queensland, it is a city and Local Government Area situated on the Bremer River in South East Queensland, Australia. It is located approximately 30 kilometres south-west of the state capital, Brisbane. So I guess it is a separate city in it's own right rather than part of Brisbane. Also, inland means...well, inland doesn't it? And yes, Brisbane as a city has a coastline as well as some islands (according to it's article and map). I doubt "inland" means "west of the great dividing range" :-). Methinks it's a piece of editorialising that probably should be deleted. Shot info 08:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly care if it stays or goes but it is a reasonably common statement that is made. Treating Ipswich as a city separate from Brisbane is just as much OR as anything else given ABS definitions of the Brisbane urban area. Is the City of Blacktown (pop: 287,634) a separate city from Sydney and inland as well? As I said I don't particularly care if it stays or not, and if it stays it needs some explanation but there is a case to be made for it. -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RE the Blacktown statement, I think if all major cities in Australia were as clearly defined as a LGA and city as Brisbane is, (as in the LGA covers an area that could really be considered the metropolitan area) we would most certainly look at this differently than we do now. Even though Ipswich and Redcliffe and Logan and the Gold and Sunshine coasts are very much connected to Brisbane in an urban sense, I would personally consider them a Megalopolis made up of several different cities. That being said, my personal opinion has no place here. In an encyclopedia where we have to avoid WP:OR the best thing we can rely on for this sort of information is the ABS statistics, so if the ABS includes Ipswich in the Brisbane metropolitan area, then there it is. aliasd·U·T 22:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the definition of an inland city is concerned, if the metro area borders the coast, then it is a coastal city, if not, then its an inland city. aliasd·U·T 22:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Curiously looking on the internet there is [Brisbane City Council] and [City of Ipswich]. I'm curious to why ABS "statistics" trump what the Queensland Government says? BTW, I don't really mind it being in the "list of cities" but it is editorialising to say and the nation's second-largest inland city after Canberra, the national capital. At the very least this last line should be deleted. With regards to the Blacktown statement, it appears that Queensland manages it's city status somewhat differently to other states of Australia, especially with regards to Brisbane. Shot info 23:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly does Sydney manage its city status differently from Brisbane. The only difference is that the City of Brisbane covers a larger area. Everton Hills, Queensland is in the same city as Everton Park, Queensland being Brisbane but is in a different Local Government Area - Pine Rivers Shire. Note the Brisbane article states currently - "The Brisbane metropolitan area now covers parts of several adjoining local government areas including Beaudesert Shire, Caboolture Shire, Gold Coast City, Ipswich City, Logan City, Pine Rivers Shire, Redcliffe City and Redland Shire." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattinbgn (talk • contribs) 00:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it appears that Queensland manages it's city status somewhat differently to other states of Australia <> How exactly does Sydney manage its city status differently from Brisbane. I don't know how they manage it different, which is why I said it appears. And really, it doesn't matter. From looking at the information on the internet, it appears that Brisbane is one big city (one LGA). Sydney isn't. Ipswich is a city as is Toowoomba going by what the local government classification in Queensland. NSW seems to lump anything around the central part of Sydney as Sydney (see the articles on Penrith as an example, it is a "city" but is called by the article a suburb...so Wikipedia calls it a suburb, but the published information doesn't....hmmm, OR anybody?). But getting back on topic, it appears that the comment and the nation's second-largest inland city after Canberra, the national capital is OR, and without a cite, it probably should go? Shot info 00:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the info about Everton Park, Queensland is incorrect as it is not in the same city as Everton Hills, Queensland. According to [1] Everton Park is in Brisbane, Everton Hills is in Pine Rivers Shire. Shot info 00:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point there was meant to state that areas of Pine Rivers are geographically part of Brisbane, and therefore in the same city. aliasd·U·T 03:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a reference for this, as the ones provided don't agree with you. WRT to the OR in this article, will wait for further comment and if none will remove, in the meantime will add a cite tag. Shot info 03:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(move back to the left). It appears we are in disagreement over definitions. You are saying that "city" means LGA in Queensland, I am saying that "city" means what it does in normal usage, which is a contiguous urban area. This may spread over more than one LGA as it does per the ABS definition of Brisbane (thus including Ipswich). I see Ipswich much the same as Parramatta and Frankston; once stand alone towns that have been absorbed by the urban expansion of the nearby major city, even if they retain their own local government. I don't think we are likely to resolve this and to attempt to come to a compromise on this for one minor claim in the article is not a productive use of time for you or me. Much easier to remove the claim if it is contentious. -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we should forget what "we" say and rather ask "what do the sources say"? They say (in Qld at anyrate) that a LGA called a "city" is..... a city. Otherwise it's a shire. FWIW the ABS definition of "Brisbane" may include Ipswich's population (amongst other shires and cities around it) but it doesn't call this entity....a city. So if our sources don't back up our claim, Wikipedia needs to remove the claim, as that is what is called "Original Research". Shot info 04:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So when the City of Toowoomba becomes Toowoomba Regional Council in March 2008, Toowoomba is no longer a city? Some common sense needs to be used here. Regardless, as I said our definitions are not going to change; well at least mine isn't so further discussion is futile. -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the sources tell us something we follow it. This is Wikipedia here, not "our definitions" (for whoever/whatever "our" equates to). So to answer your question, yes, it becomes a regional council. After all, who says it's a city. You or a source. Sorry that Wikipedia says it's a source rather than an editor. You are right, further discussion is futile, but I've come here to the talk page rather than just remove it. BTW, there is this cat that has Ipswich as a city as well. I guess it is becoming clearer why this cat applies :-/ Shot info 04:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Population

[edit]

The population of Toowoomba seems to change often and differs between the cited source and the ABS data (by approx 30,000 people). Could we have some agreeement on the current pop of toowoomba--GILDog (talk) 07:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mayors of Toowoomba with fur trimmed robes

[edit]

What fur is it? Thanks for help.--Kürschner

?? --Kürschner (talk) 12:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
??? --Kürschner (talk) 12:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
???? --Kürschner (talk) 07:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know - perhaps contact Toowoomba Regional Council @ http://www.toowoombarc.qld.gov.au/. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 07:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do yo think they will answer? I think, I will try it, thank you. --Kürschner (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

County

[edit]

Toowoomba is in Aubigny County and not Churchill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Microchook (talk • contribs) 23:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Governance

[edit]

'The electorate of Groom is noted as being the most conservative electorate in Australia - being the only electorate to vote 'No' to the recognition of Aboriginal Australians as people' - Where is the reference for this factoid?--Quizme 04:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this is pretty questionable. Firstly because it's not clear what "vote" is being referred to. From the "recognition of Aboriginal Australians as people", I presume it is referring to Australian referendum, 1967 (Aboriginals). If so, Division of Groom didn't vote in that referendum since it didn't come into existence until 1984. And in any case, this newspaper article (see end of the article, 2nd column) indicates that all electorates voted YES anyway. Maybe it's a reference to Australian republic referendum, 1999#Preamble question (which mentions Aboriginals and Torres Stait Islanders as our "first people") but that was NO-voted almost nationwide (except ACT) so Groom was not the odd one out. So I will delete the comment, because there's no citation to support it, we don't know what vote it refers to, there's no obvious evidence that Groom has voted differently in anything of this nature (and my Google searches have turned up nothing useful). Kerry (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to follow up on this with some facts. I have now obtained the electorate-level voting for Australian referendum, 1967 (Aboriginals) (thanks to a helpful staff member at the Australian Electoral Commission). The Division of Darling Downs which preceded Division of Groom voted 90.94% in favour of the referendum which was actually slightly higher than the national average of 90.77%. It was certainly not the lowest in Queensland (Division of Kennedy was with 76.55% in favour) and nowhere near the lowest nationally (Division of Kalgoorlie with 70.96% in favour).Kerry (talk) 02:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Toowoomba. 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 08:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Toowoomba. 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 07:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Religion and fundamentalist Christianity in Toowoomba

[edit]

I think much of this section is valid and should remain, although am willing to concede some further research concerning specific churches would be beneficial. The conservative and fundamentalist religious demographic of Toowoomba is widely documented. The activities of some of these churches are certainly notable, however finding sufficient citations is not easy. This time I have reduced the section to the more general summary statements from the beginning and avoided the attempt at more detailed analysis of two churches in particular. This summary has clear and credible citations from rigorous published research, as evidence of the claims made regarding Toowoomba's fundamentalist demographic. The editor that is repeatedly removing the whole section is not working within Wikipedia guidelines - if you disagree with something editorial policy clearly states that you should work to improve it. Simply removing the whole section is poor editorial practice and by doing so repeatedly you risk your own standing as an editor and risk permanent censure. The contents of this section have obviously hit a raw nerve (is it too close to home??) and for some reason the editor does not want the more bizarre practices of some groups exposed publicly. This should be a useful section to have in the article, which others can contribute to in order to produce a more complete summary of religion in the city. 1.128.96.133 (talk) 06:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I can't see how this fits with in an article about a city, yes we have section about religion but typically written about the demographics and not fundamentalist sense. Logo's may well fit (but you'll need to show relevance to the article) but you'll need more reliable sourced and needs to be written in a non POV was (they content you added had a POV feel to it). Also please do not use blogs or Facebook as a source, it isn't considered reliable and I'd also stay clear of news articles, or at least use them with great care, as they tend to report anything without fact checking just to get hits or to sell papers). Bidgee (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Demographic data related to religion from the census has been included and cited. Other information is relevant and the reference to Logos Foundation is based on a published University study. The section has been started so that other editors can contribute and work together collaboratively to complete and improve it. Wholesale deletion of the entire content is not appropriate and will result in a report leading to censure of such editors for such draconian actions in the future. Toowoomba city has a very interesting, at times bizarre and complex story to tell regarding religion and I hope others can add to this record rather than attempt to pretend that this is not a part of the Toowoomba story. The fundamentalist angle is only one side of it as there are relevant historical facts that could be included regarding the significant Lutheran history in the city, the establishment of Diocesan cathedrals etc. I hope others can contribute to make this section more complete. Please stop deleting the whole thing and add to it or improve it as you see fit which is in the spirit of Wikipedia. 1.128.96.160 (talk) 07:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Winters are dry

[edit]

Winters are pretty dry דולב חולב (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Toowoomba&oldid=1205729261"