Template talk:Launceston suburbs

Suburbs

WTH to the guy that removed the "non gazetted" suburbs, i live in Launceston, and i know for a fact that Alanvale, Elphin, Glen Dhu, Inveresk(which is mentioned on the main page), Mowbray Heights(where i live!!) and Sandhill are all suburbs of Launceston.

Vermont is more of a suburb than dilston, Dilston happens to lie roughly 5km north of the most northern suburb(Rocherlea) where as Vermont is located between Mowbray and Ravenswood along Vermont Road, try a bit more research next time before wildy removing stuff to boost your edit points :)

Using the consensus that's been established in every other city in Australia to only have articles for gazetted suburbs, I didn't see any point in maintaining a bunch of redlinks to suburbs that are in fact sub-localities. For example - Inveresk is part of the suburb of Invermay (p.28 Carto, map 4 UBD), Mowbray Heights (26 Carto, 2 UBD) and Vermont (30 Carto, 4 UBD) are both within the suburb of Mowbray, while Glen Dhu and Sandhill (both 32 Carto/6 UBD) are within South Launceston. Checking the Gazetteer of Australia for each of the names above renders "LOCU" (unbounded locality) whereas the correct ones render "LOCB" (bounded locality), meaning they have been gazetted in the Government Gazette of Tasmania and have been assigned borders. Dilston is a gazetted suburb of the City of Launceston despite its location and likely negligible population (Prospect Vale is far more a part of Launceston yet is in another council's borders - but has been included in this box anyway).

Sources:

* Carto Plus (September 2002). Northern Tasmania Street Directory (1 ed.). Rosny Park, TAS. ISBN 0-9586323-4-0.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) 919.4611 NOR

* Universal Press (2004). UBD Tasmania Country Road Atlas (16 ed.). Macquarie Park, NSW. pp. 109–117. ISBN 0-7319-1672-7.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

* "Gazetteer of Australia online". Geoscience Australia, Australian Government.

Orderinchaos 14:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it would certainly would appear that a lot of them websites need updating, but thats indeed the problem with Tasmania it's way behind the rest of the country.

Nevertheless I assure you they are indeed there and are indeed suburbs.

I would also like to point out that there is also an additional two suburbs also of "minor" status which have been left out completely thus far namely (Killafaddy and Riverside West).

Also while I am discussing "minor" suburbs Riverside North is a minor suburb of Riverside.

Just one more thing, you claimed you removed some minor suburbs due to not being gazetted and the abundance of Red (edit me) links, if I am not mistaken Vermont (a now removed suburb) had a link with text giving a fairly accurate description of itself?

Wow all these minor suburbs, maybe you would like to create a minor suburb section, since Launceston has so many

Stony 03:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont was a one-line stub with very little other information (pretty much said where it was and that it only had a few houses - although that seemed to disagree with the ABS which claimed it had a reasonably substantial population). As for updating - the Tasmanian Government and whichever department that administers lands and surveys are the ones responsible for gazettals of suburbs, and if I had access to the same resources for Tasmania that I do for WA (I'm Western Australian but lived very briefly in Launceston, out of curiosity), I'm sure I would be able to find the exact gazettals which would include the defined boundaries as marked in both of the above publications. According to the gazette, Riverside West is a building rather than a suburb (you're right re Riverside North, that was a stuffup on my part), while Killafaddy is an unofficial designation (although strangely, the Carto publication does treat Killafaddy like an actual suburb, pretty much the only one it's in conflict with the gazette on). The reason we're so picky on the gazette - Sydney and Melbourne in particular have all sorts of problems with unofficial suburbs and the requirement for verifiability forced them to pick a source and stick to it - hence the gazette, which is an official government source.

As for the list - yeah! If we can find a verifiable list of them somewhere they should most definitely be in an article titled "List of Launceston suburbs" or somesuch - a list hasn't been created yet so that might be something to look into. Orderinchaos 05:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay in order to end this, I shall agree.

I happened to across the fact that another minor suburb (Travellers rest) is listed as locb in the gazette so i added it.

Stony 12:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work finding that one! I also noticed Relbia and Windermere within CoL - this issue of country towns coming under the city is a problem in Perth as well where Bailup and Chidlow are considered suburbs while Muchea, which is a lot closer to Perth, gets called a town. It'll be interesting to see what we can get happening with these articles, it's been my perception for a while that regional cities get nowhere near the attention that capital city articles get. I'm happy to help wherever I can. Orderinchaos 12:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]