Template talk:Toowoomba Region

Division

There appears to be many places not listed on this template. Should it be divided into sections corresponding to the four main compass points? - Shiftchange (talk) 03:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are a lot missing. But I think only those readers who know the area well are likely to be able to guess whether they are looking for an entry in a particular compass direction. So I think it makes more work for the average reader to scan 4 lists than just one. Also what is chosen as the point from which the compass directions are determined? The geometic centroid? The major town in the region? The LGA administrative centre? I think unless there is some "obvious" or "well known" way to divide up an LGA (either major geographic feature) or something used by the LGA itself, it's just a source of arguments waiting to happen as it is creating some grouping mechanism that does not exist in the real world (think "Upper Oxley" and "Lower Oxley" as an example of this sort of thing). I think alphabetic is the safe neutral default solution. Kerry (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a complete list of the towns and localities. Do you need it? It won't distinguish those that are suburbs of Tooowoomba as everything in that LGA is bounded locality. I think the only way to determine "suburbs of Toowoomba" is to look for the urban sprawl in Queensland Globe. Kerry (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I will expand it. Because of the shape of the LGA it doesn't need an east. I don't think scanning 3 or 4 short lists creates more "work" for the average reader. Using the Brisbane suburb template I sometimes guess the wrong one and have to find the suburb by going through the sections. Its a very minor frustration. I was thinking of a rough division by two lines radiating from Toowoomba in NW and SW directions but the existing division is good enough. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What if I separate the official towns into their own section? - Shiftchange (talk) 04:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That might work. Kerry (talk) 03:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added in a couple of missing towns. One of them, Gowrie, is tricky. It's one of those towns that isn't also a locality. Its coords put it within the locality of Gowrie Junction. This might be a situation that calls for a redirect as there doesn't seem much sense in duplicating information in Gowrie and Gowrie Junction. Kerry (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also a bit surprised that Westbrook and Highfields (both towns and localities) are listed as Toowoomba suburbs in the template. It's true that urban sprawl of Toowoomba might soon overtake Westbrook but satellite views in Google Maps suggest it is still distinct. And Highfields is quite a way north of Toowoomba and also quite distinct. I can readily believe that people might commute from Westbrook and Highfields to Toowoomba for work, but that doesn't make them suburbs. In the absence of official gazetting as suburbs, I think we need a contiguous urban sprawl to use that term and I don't it currently applies to these two. I would be tempted to list them in the towns section. Your thoughts? Kerry (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for Gowrie and move out of Toowoomba section for the other two is probably the most sensible. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]