Talk:Brisbane/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Image copyright problem with File:Commonwealth Games Federation Logo.png

The image File:Commonwealth Games Federation Logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved - image was removed from {{Commonwealth Games Host Cities}}. Franamax (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Environment

There is no mention of environment. Surely there are some environmental issues affecting Brisbane. I'm sure there are some. The Brisbane River article makes mention of some of them. And which government agencies are responsible for the environment in Brisbane ? --Biatch (talk) 04:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Distance to Redcliffe

As it stands the artcle states: "The first European settlement in Queensland was a penal colony at Redcliffe, 28 kilometres (17 mi) north of Brisbane"

Redcliffe may be 28kms from Brisbane city centre but it is much closer to Brisbane city which stretches out to Brighton. The closest Redcliffe suburb to Brisbane (Clontarf) is actually only 3km from the closest Brisbane suburb to Redclffe (Brighton).

This wording needs to be changed. IAmCylon (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This has been previously discussed, but I have further modified the two sentences to try to make it clearer. SEO⁷⁵ ^[talk] 08:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Climate

Do we need a climate graph and a climate chart? Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)}

We used to have one. What the hell hapenned to it? IAmCylon (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Instead of asking silly questions simply look at history, additionally to the others: climate graph/chart is an important feature and encyclopedic in value you shouldn't remove such without a discussion, however the dust storms that appeared a couple days ago (sep-09) is not, has nothing to do with Brisbane climate weather as this affected most of mid-QLD to southern NSW and inland. If your going to add something as stupid and trivial as this you might as well take a photo or two off my facebook page from the November 2008 storms that hit the gap, or The floods earlier in the year, which caused an avalanche in my backyard and was on the news for 8 days straight seriously people.... stop adding irrelevant bs. Gcampton (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I took the liberty of removing it, if someone could please check over to make sure references are still intact and in order. thnx. And I have put this page on watchlist so will be re-removing it when and if it gets replaced. Until someone can show me that this is encyclopedic in nature. In that scenario will give way to others adding every single historical weather event for the last 200 years. Gcampton (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Every year we get some stuffed up weather event that seems to break records, while the dust storms did look very ominous you have to understand that A: it's just dust, and B: this happens daily in the sahara with sand storms only sand hurts a heck of a lot more.Gcampton (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Remember it's wikipedia not GuinessBooks of you know what...Gcampton (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Your reasoning is quite flawed. The dust storm is notable, significant but also historical since dust storms such as the size of 23 Sept is quite rare and when they do happen (ever 70 or so years) they normally happen during the summer but even then are quite weak when they reach Brisbane. Bidgee (talk) 22:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I have taken out the reference to the dust storm because it is rare. It is not a part of the normal weather pattern here, and should not be included.--Dmol (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you bidgee I'm not disputing that it was historical but it was a once off wierd event that broke records, fact is brisbane breaks weather records fairly regularly. I'm starting to change on the idea of inclusion but wanted discussion. As there have just been so many freakish events it means others will add to the climate info adding every irregular record breaking storm. Largest hailstorm ever recorded etc etc...The gap storms in nov did break the record for largest wind gusts as no cyclone/tornado was recorded Gcampton (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Past dust storms recorded can be added on as they are part of Brisbane's climate (much like Tropical Cyclone which have hit Brisbane in the past [Infact the freq of both rare events would be about the same]). Hailstorms are also notable even if it's what you could say a "one off" but the hailstorm is sigificant and also part of the climate even though it may only happen every 50 years or more. Bidgee (talk) 07:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

One of the most historical weather events of Brisbane history was the 74 floods. This is included in the historical section, but not in climate. IMO climate should have a few very small parts: typical weather pattern graph / highest downfall recorded / hottest-coldest day, typical wind patterns, air pressure, humidity. To quote dictionary.com

cli⋅mate /ˈklaɪmɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [klahy-mit] Use climate in a Sentence –noun 1. the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.Gcampton (talk) 03:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

urmmm so? If it was about an average say thunderstorm then it would be correct to remove however Brisbane does get the odd dust storm (Last significant dust storm was in 2002 [Same year as Sydney]). Climate sections are that and rare weather events are part of the climate. Bidgee (talk) 07:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

image - BrisbaneRiver02 gobeirne-edit1.jpg loading problems

I'm not sure why, but the image BrisbaneRiver02 gobeirne-edit1.jpg doesn't load up properly on this page. At least it doesn't on my pc. It stays blank for a long time before it shows up. Usually it's blank for the first few minutes after opening the page. My Internet broadband is very fast, and my pc is fast. I don't think they're to blame here as I don't have problems like this on any other page/website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.46.240 (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

1925 population

"In 1925, the City of Brisbane Act was passed by the Queensland Government, abolishing 20 local government authorities in the city and forming the largest local authority in Australia,[6] with a population of over a million."

I read this sentence as saying that the area covered by the City of Brisbane had a population of over 1m in 1925. I find this implausible. Please provide a source that demonstrates this or clarify what the sentence means. Thanks, Mattinbgn\^talk 04:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Didnt catch my eye untill I read it again, sorry. Must've been added by an IP and it went undetected for a long time. It's since been removed. --Sb617 (talk · contribs) 04:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Brisbane CA Sister city??

Is Brisbane CA a sister city? I looked at the reference and there is no mention of this. On the Brisbane CA page there is also no reference for this. Please correct as I don't know how to make a [citation required] thing appear

cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.22.91 (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I found it http://www.ci.brisbane.ca.us/html/about/fact.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.98.116 (talk) 11:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Tourist Website

Reading other Australian city entries alot of them have a link to the city's tourist website. Would it be advisable to list Brisbane's?

www.visitbrisbane.com.au

Ascough (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Population, Density and Area

It is so very annoying when each of these 3 stats are taken from different sites. On this page we have have a reference for each item, which means no one of them can be changed without a reference. If we assume that the population and the area are correct, because based on figures for the LGAs, they fit, then the density is miles out. I have tried and failed to rectify this by simply calculating the correct density using the given population and area figures, and hoping that no one will change it back.

If someone can find a site which has all 3 stats on it, and they all match up, then I would love it if they'd put them in, because I can't find one. Why can't any one see that chaning it back to incorrect figures, is really stupid?? VanillaBear23 (talk) 10:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The information isn't from 3 different sites, it's all from the ABS. That said, I don't see how all of the figures could be correct. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well if it's all from the ABS, they must be for different definitions of Brisbane. The ABS website does seem rather frenzied and impenatrable, though I did only go on there once. Why can't anyone with a bit of common sense (and alot more knowledge that I) come up with some stats that make sense?? VanillaBear23 (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Under "Urban Structure", just below the (satellite?) photo, is contradictory but quite possibly correct data: "The city has a density of 379.4 people per square kilometre, which is high for an Australian city and comparable to that of Sydney." GeorgeTSLC (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Low-lying floodplain?

Is Brisbane really on a floodplain or just the north east quarter of the city? Considering that the Taylor Range has a spur that reaches the CBD from the west and there are a number of mountains, numerous hilly areas and ridges as well as cliffs along the river it can hardly be described as a floodplain. No citation has been provided for the claim regarding a floodplain but there is a citation for the hilly description.

Also the location description as being between the Great Dividing Range and Moreton Bay is not that accurate. Travelling west from Brisbane the Little Liverpool Range and the D'Aguilar Range are crossed before reaching the Great Dividing Range. Any thoughts? - Shiftchange (talk) 12:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Picture

Should the overhead photograph state that it is looking Eastward? Being very familiar with Brisbane, even I was confused at first, having just assumed it was facing North.

Therealfindo (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

LGA population in intro must be removed

where it says brisbane's LGA has a population of a million in the intro needs to be removed. None of the other aust cities give details on the population of the central LGA so its very inconsistent. Also, this article is NOT on the brisbane city council (LGA), but the metropilatan area of brisbane, which includes several different council LGAs, so including this figure here is very confusing. I have tried editing this, but it has been changed. Please revert the article to the consistent standard for Australian cities in this regard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.63.196 (talk) 03:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The saga continues. What other LGAs do you think should be considered part of Brisbane? While you might like to attain consistency with other Australian cities, it has to be based on reality. The current Brisbane LGA was formed from an amalgamation of many smaller LGAs mid last century. People rarely think of or refer to Brisbane as anything other than the LGA, unlike Sydney where, for example, people living in the City of Parramatta consider themselves Sydneysiders while people in the City of Ipswich generally think they live outside of Brisbane. This has been the consensus view at Wikipeida and what I believe is the local perspective. Is my understanding of metropolitan area faulty? A reliable source indicating something otherwise which supports your view would convince me that your suggested changes are needed. - Shiftchange (talk) 03:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure about this either, but I did find this line in the article: Unlike other Australian capital cities, a large portion of the greater metropolitan area of Brisbane is controlled by a single local government entity, the Brisbane City Council. So, I guess that means that unlike in Sydney where all 38 LGA's are self governing, there is a greater deal of control from the main Brisbane LGA? Anoldtreeok (talk) 05:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone seriously believe that places like Everton Hills, Queensland and Alexandra Hills should be excluded from the definition of Brisbane in this article? Both are clearly part of Brisbane but outside the Brisbane LGA. Of course, those favouring a pure LGA focus for this article (rather than the Metro. area) are trying to play both ends: They want to exclude the other LGAs in the metropolitain area but still make a claim to be the third biggest city in Australia. This article should of course be about the Brisbane metropolitan area and City of Brisbane should be about the LGA, as is the case elsewhere - not this half'n'half hybrid that exists now. "while people in the City of Ipswich generally think they live outside of Brisbane" An interesting claim, but I would be interested if the same applies for Redland, Moreton Bay and Logan ... -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

nope. we dont need to think about what in your opinion should be included, or which LGAs. the aust bureau of statistics does that for us. this is an article of brisbanes metropolitan area as defined by the ABS, just as every single other article on australian cities is. end of discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.63.196 (talk) 11:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Well have fun expanding the History section to include those extra LGAs. Then the Geography section will have to include those areas too, will it not? Since Amberley is part of Ipswich which is now part of Brisbane will the temperature records have to updated to include the much colder conditions out west? The Governance and Economy sections only discuss the Brisbane LGA at the moment. How about the Education and Culture sections, they seem to be excluding a lot of content about the Brisbane metropolitan area. Be sure to include all the infrastructure like Logan and Ipswich hospitals when you re-write most of the article. Skimming the article I can't see much about Redlands or Moreton Bay so will those omissions have to be covered too? Really is the article about the Greater Brisbane area or is it just two small sections that include ABS definitions? - Shiftchange (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

According to the IP's definition, the Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast must be included in this article too, since according to the IP editors, it's included as a part of Brisbane, when technically the outer areas (Caboolture, Ipswich, etc) are actually a part of South East Queensland. Sb617 (Talk) 14:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Back on a note, i've reverted/tweaked the intro to include the "Greater Metropolitan Brisbane population (excluding Gold/Sunshine Coast)", while at the same time incorporating the local LGA population at the same time. If any IPs and/or edits must insist otherwise, you might as well include the history of Ipswich, Logan, Sunshine Coast, Gold Coast, etc since South East Queensland is considered Greater Brisbane in some population statistics. This is clearly a article on Brisbane, not South East Queensland. Sb617 (Talk) 14:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the GC and sunshine coast are NOT included in the stat division of brisbane. im sorry, youre going to have to concede defeat on this one. look at the map from the ABS, brisbanes metro area is defined as going from caboolture to logan and out to ipswich. all other aust cities use the ABS definition for their articles and population counts, so for consistency and officiality, we are doing the same. Do not attempt to go against the convention which has been used for every other Aust city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.63.196 (talk) 08:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

there is a very clear way of doing things on wikipedia in these situations, and that is to FOLLOW CONVENTION and CONSISTENCY. looking at every single other article for an australian city, the articles are defined as the ABS's definition of a metro area. LGAs (ie the LGA of sydney) have their own separate articles eg "sydney city council". An LGA (or city council) and a city whole, or metropolitan area, are very distinct entities. whoever is reverting this back to include the LGA, please stop, as there is a clear convention in all the other australian city articles, and on wikipedia, that is what we go by in this situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.63.196 (talk) 08:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/ABSNavigation/prenav/LocationSearch?locationLastSearchTerm=brisbane&locationSearchTerm=brisbane&newarea=305&collection=Census&period=2006&areacode=&geography=&method=&productlabel=&producttype=&topic=&navmapdisplayed=true&javascript=true&breadcrumb=L&topholder=0&leftholder=0&currentaction=104&action=104&textversion=false&subaction=2 this link shows the map of the brisbane metro area as defined by the ABS, it does not include gold or sunshine coasts so no need to mention that. this is the SD as defined by the ABS, this is what, based on convention of all other articles of cities in australia, we define this article as being. so please do not revert to unconventionally and confusingly including the LGA. this puts the issue to rest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.63.196 (talk) 08:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You haven't addressed my points. Notice how every photo, except the satellite image and most of the content is only about the Brisbane LGA. You might think we have to achieve consistency, but accuracy is more important. Brisbane ends at the border of the Brisbane LGA. The Brisbane Metro area is another thing and can be mentioned here but the fact is that the article is about Brisbane and not what other would like it to be for consistency. Take the temperature records for instance, are you going to change that and claim that the records for Ipswich or elsewhere in the met. area are now going to be the records for Brisbane? That would be incorrect and even more confusing. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

What Shiftchange said, and besides the Brisbane Metro area is more considered South East Queensland, if you want to change consensus set for this article, you have to be willing to include the weather reports and the brief history for Moreton Bay, Redcliffe, Logan, Ipswich into this article. If you want to change it, you have to incorporate the other South East Queensland LGAs into this article, otherwise this article will be very inconsistent. Are you willing to do that? Sb617 (Talk) 08:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Also note that History of Brisbane, Arts and culture in Brisbane, Popular entertainment in Brisbane and Transport in Brisbane exclude anything beyond the Brisbane LGA. Tourism in Brisbane follows this convention also with exception of Alma Park Zoo which could probably be corrected. Considering this, Wikipedia views Brisbane as only the Brisbane LGA. Hope that helps. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

nope, sorry. look at the sydney, melbourne, or perth articles. they are all pictures of the CBD (inside LGAs too). i agree, add some history and geo of the other parts. the reason its not there is that unlike other aust cities, the BCC covers almost half of brisbane, whereas in most others like syd and melb the central LGA covers only a little. were going to stick to the traditional definition of the metro area here. read the rules of wikipedia. if in doubt, follow convention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.63.196 (talk) 10:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

a possible compromise:

Brisbane (/ˈbrɪzbən/^[1]) is the capital and most populous city in the Australian state of Queensland. Brisbane's metropolitan area has a population predicted to be 2,000,000 by the Australian Bureau of Statitstics, making it the third most populous city in Australia.^[2] Brisbane's Local Government Area, which, unlike those of other Australian capitals, includes the greater part of the metropolitan area, is Australia's largest by population.

this includes a link to and introduction of the Brisbane city council LGA, but does not compromise the convention of australian cities articles refering to the official ABS definition.

A more concise alternative would be

Brisbane (/ˈbrɪzbən/^[3]) is the capital and most populous city in the Australian state of Queensland. With a metropolitan area of 2,000,000 people and a central Local Government Area comprising half of that, it is the third most populous city, and most populous Local Government Area in Australia.

pick and choose.

I prefer the first one. Notice that none of the extra LGA articles claim to belong to Brisbane. They state that they are positioned in various directions around Brisbane. No matter what ABS statistics state or how other capital city articles are written it is factually false to claim that Ipswich, Logan or the other LGAs are in Brisbane. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

ok we go with the first one. there is already an article on the brisbane LGA brisbane city council, if you feel that theres not enough on the four other LGAs that are within the brisbane metro area, INCLUDE MORE in the history and geo section, do not try changing the subject of the article to be inconsistent with every other major city article. Take the first option then as a compromise, and i guess the notice at the top about the dispute can be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.63.196 (talk) 11:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. You are not paying attention to what the facts are on the ground. You are far too concerned with other articles and ABS statistics which are beside the point. Brisbane is and will ever only be about the Brisbane LGA. It is you who is trying to change the subject of the article to include surrounding LGA's which are not part of Brisbane. The article doesn't include temperature records from Ipswich and all the rest you are logically arguing should be included because it is not part of Brisbane. Nobody is going to add information about tourism in Ipswich to the Tourism in Brisbane page and so forth. Can you comprehend this? - Shiftchange (talk) 11:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Go to the melbourne or sydney article and look at their temperatures. do u see any from frankstown, parramatta, kooyong, south sydney, any of THEIR other LGAs? NO. PS in the compromised intro where it says local govt area in the sentence links to the brisbane city council LGA article, a SEPERATE ARTICLE on the LGA. if not anything else, that should make it clear that THIS article is not on the LGA, but on the official brisbane metro area.we found a compromise. lets leave it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.63.196 (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

here is a map of brisbanes metro area. as you can see, there is no stop around the BCC area, everything is a full mass from caboolture to ipswich to beenleigh.

http://www.coastshop.com.au/maps/road/QLD%20brisbane%20region.jpg

here is a map showing the boundaries of the BCC. you see where im coming from now dont you...........

http://www.discoverbrisbane.com/maps/brisbane.gif —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.63.196 (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you see on the City of Parramatta and Parramatta, New South Wales articles they both state the they are part of Sydney. You will not find that on the City of Ipswich or Ipswich, Queensland articles because they are not part of Brisbane. This is the central and over-riding point that you choose to ignore. You are making things up so that it fits with your view of what it should be, when the reality is different. The Brisbane LGA is the council that covers the same area as Brisbane, unlike other cities. They are separate articles because one is about a political body while the other is about a geographical settlement, not because they cover differing areas.

Brisbane in all its literal interpretations here at Wikipedia, as evidenced by the numerous examples I have given, excludes surrounding LGAs. So to repeat Brisbane as referenced here at Wikipedia does not include surrounding LGAs and in general use elsewhere only refers to the Brisbane LGA. How other cities are defined to include surrounding LGAS is not relevant because it doesn't apply here. This is the consensus that has arisen for whatever reason. ABS definitions are useful for statistical purposes only and may at times differ from common usage. This is what we are concerned with, common usage, not statistical divisions.

You have not achieved a compromise, rather you have added illogical and contravening claims that conflict with numerous other articles. What you should do is work on improving the South East Queensland article to include what you consider is important to mention about the Brisbane metropolitan area, because no matter how you feel it should be, the Brisbane article and practically all descriptions of Brisbane here and elsewhere do not refer to the Brisbane metropolitan area. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Notice the first sentence in Brisbane City Council which says it is the governing council for Brisbane. It doesn't say it is one of a number of LGAs for Brisbane. More supporting evidence includes the list of Template:Cities of Australia with seperate entries for Ipswich, Queensland, Logan City and Redcliffe City, Queensland but not Parramatta or the ones you mentioned. WikiProject Brisbane doesn't cover anything outside of the Brisbane LGA either. - Shiftchange (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Having it both ways

Those who consider this article should be about the LGA rather than the Brisbane metro area (which does not include the Gold and Sunshine coasts - that is a particularly egregious piece of misinformation) have a responsibility to ensure that this article does not veer into cherry-picking information about the metro area for inclusion. As it stands, the whole Demographics section (which is based on the ABS definition of Brisbane that the LGA-ists here reject) needs to be removed in its entirety. If you reject the ABS definition of Brisbane then you cannot use the statistics that the ABS provide using that definition. Again, this article is trying to have it both ways. I think the consensus here is utterly wrong-headed but given that it exists, those who support it should endeavour to make the article internally consistent. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree! Sure Brisbane LGA in the largest but this article is about the metro area of Brisbane (Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast are their own identity and no way part of Brisbane) and the LGA information should be in the Brisbane City Council. The fanboi'ism as I call it should stop, fact is we have a policy here on neutral point of view and it should be followed however it seems to me those cherry-picking must forget or seem to think it doesn't apply to them but the fact is, it applies to everyone. Bidgee (talk) 23:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

So are you suggesting that Rathdowney, Queensland, Canungra, Queensland, Tamborine Mountain and Kalbar, Queensland, all towns in the Scenic Rim Region need to be changed to state they are part of Brisbane rather than in South East Queensland? Why do you think that none of these articles state they are in Brisbane if that was the case? Has some fanboy gone around and made sure that the view I am expressing is stated here or has the view I put forward organically and neutrally emerged as the consensus because it is the most accurate and consistent with the prevailing perspective? Are all the editors who wrote the articles this way wrong? By claiming the Brisbane article is about the wider Brisbane metropolitan area aren't you are adding ambiguity, in contravention of the Wikipedia:Article titles policy? I'm not inclined to edit war and will be taking Brisbane off my watchlist shortly because I see it being wrecked so it fits in. - Shiftchange (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

With respect, you are missing the point. If this article is going to be about the Brisbane LGA then it needs to be about the LGA, not the metro area. This article is trying to be about the LGA but continually refers to the metro area. The LGA-ists such as yourself need to pick one definition and stick to it consistently. The lead sentence claims that Brisbane is the third largest city in Australia - by your definition this just is not true. The demographics section claims that "Brisbane recorded the largest growth rate of all capital cities in the last Census" - again if you are talking about the LGA rather than the metro area, then this claim is false. This confusion is riddled throughout the article, including the infobox, and it is the responsible of the WP:OWNers of this article to fix it, one way or the other.

A second point, claiming that the local definition of "Brisbane" is the only one with validity is not right. If I was going to visit my (imaginary) cousin in Arana Hills I would be telling my collegues elsewhere in Australia that I was going to Brisbane. If I said I was going to Moreton Bay I would get a bunch of stunned looks and queries as to where the hell was that. Using the idiosyncratic, local definition of Brisbane does not assist the wider reading audience from elsewhere in Australia (or indeed worldwide) to understand what the article is saying. Incidently, it says something about the walled garden that SEQ articles have become that if you read the Arana Hills, Queensland article you would have absolutely no idea the locality is part of the Brisbane metropolitan area. The exclusion of any mention of Brisbane in articles on localities in the Moreton Bay, Logan, Redland LGAs et al is profoundly misleading to readers living outside the south east of the state.

Lastly, if the article is proposed to be about the LGA then, uniquely among the mainland state capitals, there will not be an article on the greater metropolitan area. The solution of using South East Queensland is flawed as it includes the discrete urban centres of the Gold and Sunshine Coasts (and the Lockyer Valley, Esk and surrounds etc.). How do we address this topic? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There would be no misleading, exclusions or duplicity if the Brisbane metropolitan area article had been created years ago to clarify these concerns. This is what I suggested a while ago but it was dismissed because it didn't fit the mould. Notice that the table on Local Government Areas of Queensland and none of the category structures confer with your view. Part of the problem is that there is no Category:South East Queensland. I'm not understanding the example of Arana Hills, Queensland, because I can easily see from the template at the bottom it is part of the the Moreton Bay LGA in South East Queensland and by reading the lead it is located just to the north of Brisbane. Why would these basic facts cause confusion? This whole debate seems very strange to me. The Brisbane article needs to be clarified for sure. I have only ever been a very minor contributor to that page so I personally don't feel I'm obliged to correct anything. Also there are some descriptions of the Brisbane metropolitan area that do include the north and south coasts. If they were sourced and fleshed out they could be elaborated on the South East Queensland page. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Are there articles for the syd or melb metro area? simple answer is no. all articles refering to australian cities on wikipedia refer to metro areas. im sorry, shiftchange, but you're going to have to put your own personal opinion aside, and do this the official, conventional way. You cant have all other aust city articles refering to metro area and ours going to council. are you implying brisbane is in fact the 5th largest city after perth and adelaide? this would be the case in your definition. you may have a personal definition but the fact is that ABS is the standard in australia and is used in all other articles. there is ALREADY an article on the brisbane LGA. you may improve or make a new one if you want, but the article that links simple to Brisbane remains the metro area --- its time to put personal opinions aside and go with the official definition. If someone asks what the population of brisbane is youll say its the 3rd largest in aust and has 2 mill, not the 5th largest with 1 mill. to change this article youd be going against every single reference to our city and every official definition and convention used on the subject in this country. Saruman-the-White —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.63.196 (talk) 07:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

i have added a link at the top of the page stating this article is about the metro area (as with all other aust cities) and provided a link to the LGA of the same name. As stated by convention, anything relating to the BCC LGA goes in there. Saruman-the-white —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.63.196 (talk) 07:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Where do you get the idea that there is some official conventional way that must be adhered to regardless? Could you point to this policy on consistency? Who cares what articles exist for the other cities and their definitions, we are only discussing the Brisbane article and how to improve it. Is Caboolture, Queensland in Brisbane? No, but it is in the metropolitan area as the article indicates. Basic facts like this are more important for an encyclopedia than matching what the ABS dictates or for consistencies sake. The fact is that the majority of the Brisbane article and most references to it do not mean the Brisbane metropolitan area. This is another factor that is more important than consistency or exactly aligning with the ABS.

I am only suggesting that the figure for the population of Brisbane for statistical purposes is based on a metropolitan area division and that ideally it should be discussed on another page, because that 2 million figure is based on the metropolitan area, not just the commonly held view of Brisbane, which it seems is unlike other cities. What I have been saying is that this article is not about the wider area, that Brisbane covers one LGA and that so for the sake of clarity both figures should be mentioned in the Brisbane article and content related to the metropolitan area be moved to another page. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

What a long debate for a black and white issue. Brisbane is a metropolitan area which includes multiple LGAs. There are references to this already present in the article. The ABS, as the national statistical agency, owners and conductors of the national Census are the data source and clearly hold the view that Brisbane is a metropolitan area of multiple LGAs as well a distinct LGA. Trying to construe the article to say SEQ or whatever is the metropolitan region is WP:OR. It looks like Shiftchange is taking this far too personally. --AtD (talk) 08:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Where I get the idea that there is a conventional way is that in every single other aust city article, typing the name of the city eg Sydney will link to the metro area article. As AtD says, Brisbane is a metro area. If you feel there is not enough on Brisbane's suburbs in the partial parts of the other LGAs that Brisbane covers, then I'd be happy to add some in, you could assist too. There is a seperate page linked at the top for the LGA as well which you can feel free to improve as you see fit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.63.196 (talk) 09:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I added extra citations to the Australian Standard Geographical Classifications (ASGC) for Queensland, which is generally used by any serious research or statistics in this country. I also included the new definitions for the 2011 Census just to show that Brisbane will still be a capital city in the near future. :)

These classifications are based on data such as number of commuters between given areas to determine interdependence of urban populations. A capital city is a greater entity than an LGA, and all Australian capital cities are a single Statistical Division each, Brisbane included. If editors chose to reject this, then almost all of the numerical data on the page is either incorrect or useless and any comparisons made to other Australian city's articles will be wrong. These standard definitions exist for that very reason. Not to mention that whole WP:OR thing. --AtD (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm over discussing this article but on a related matter I am now far more concerned with the hundreds of confusing errors that the metropolitan area stipulation introduces. Take the Tamborine National Park for example, the next article I was going to work on. Is the first sentence in the article true or false? Because the definition on the Brisbane article implies it is part of Brisbane not some distance south of Brisbane. To support the metropolitan area view a reference would have to state it is south of the Brisbane City Council not south of Brisbane would it not? This inevitable confusion is why I have pushed my barrow, not because I am taking something personally. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I've noted that the IP had attempted to bring this to the attention of a outside forum. I would sincerly suggest he registers a account with a username if he wants to help out.

Considering a lot of people had come out of the woodwork lately, Shiftchange has brought a valid point on the above, and there is a lot of work to do, especially that many South East Queensland articles will now require changing to state that is a suburb of the Brisbane Metropolitan area, ____kms _____ of the Brisbane CBD, Its local government area is the ____ shire/regional council Sb617 (Talk) 15:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It is far, far worse than that. Apparently we have to base the jurisdiction of capital city articles on the commuting patterns of a portion of residents who live in nearby LGAs. We must dismiss any other sources that contradict as this is original research even though this definition was created by a government body solely for the purpose of labour force data comparisons. Can you imagine if petrol prices dramatically rise and people choose not to commute to Brisbane. Then if the ABS removes certain LGA's from their definitions we would have to change all our articles to align with the latest ABS definitions. According to the third reference in the Brisbane article which explains this, we must now include Laidley, Esk and Kilcoy in Brisbane. I think some editors need to consider Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight, place less importance on ABS definitions and think about all the other reliable sources which will contradict the ABS's rather odd definitions of what Brisbane actually is. - Shiftchange (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I like how you try to dismiss the ABS as a faceless government bureaucracy. Remember that when you fill out your census next year. You are correct, though, city's aren't a static things and do change, and Wikipedia should reflect this reality. Oh, and Tamborine is a national park on the edge of Brisbane, 50-ish km south of the city centre. :) --AtD (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

But this reference says the park is 80 km south of Brisbane. You had better let the Department of Environment and Resource Management know so they can update their page. Don't forget to change the infoboxes on all those towns around Brisbane that state they are a certain distance from Brisbane. Oddly enough the Kilcoy infobox was added by Mattinbgn. Talk about having it both ways. Try telling someone from Rathdowney, Queensland that they live in Brisbane. And please remember to cherry-pick what we include in the Brisbane article. Our definition of Brisbane covers all these places especially their populations, but excludes the temperature records from them. Anything other than these arbitrary descriptions of what to include is just a personal opinion. - Shiftchange (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear shiftchange, when an article says something like 100km from brisbane, they mean from the brisbane CBD. Brisbane is actually also a suburb with the postcode 4000. same as if i say 900km from sydney theyre talking from the CBD. So yes, some national parks may be part of the brisbane metro area and it could be eful to include this, but technically its still correct that wherever is however many km from brisbane, just as its true southbank is 1 km south of brisbane (CBD). Also, its not all of the LGAs that are included, by the i mean the whole area. So for example, where it says scenic rim is included in the brisbane LGA, if you go to the ABS site to see how the brisbane metro area is defined (they have a map) youll see only a very tiny section is included of the scenic rim LGA. so some of those places you mentioned arent actually part of the brisbane metro area at all. some may indeed be located in the brisbane metro area, and i could help adding this to the relevent articles if necessary (you know much of the blue mountains, gosford, katoomba nat'l parks are in the sydney metro area too). But yes, the fact remains that a wiki article when linked directly to the name of an aust city doesnt go to the suburb, ie brisbane 4000, qld, or sydney 2000 nsw, the LGA, ie bris city council, sydney city council, but the metro area. PS. i did put on our compromised intro, but its since been changed (now says a lot about the denonym ie. brisbanite, "brisvegan" .. i didnt do this by the way). i will sign up for a user name yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.63.196 (talk) 06:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the ABS brisbane metro area map? - Shiftchange (talk) 08:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Shiftchange, do you consider yourself a greater expert than the ABS on population statistics? Your arguments suggest you do. You may not like the definitions but they are consistent between the major cities of Australia, and if you feel as strongly as you seem to: contact the ABS and complain to them. Your comments about temperature are bizarre: data for a centre is from only one location and is meant to be representative of the general climate in that area, though there may be variations throughout city. In reality the variation over the Brisbane metro area is quite small in comparison to that of more mountainous cities, such as Lima. In theory the figures should be from the centre of the city. No modifications based variation within the metro is necessary. $eti (talk) 07:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Like most Australian cities, we need to be careful when using the term Brisbane, in both articles and in reading references. Brisbane refers to a capital city, an LGA, a business district, a postal area (Brisbane 4000) and so on. All of these uses have different borders and exist in different contexts. Changing the terms of the lead of this one article will not remove the confusion. This is true of most large Australian cities.

The link Shiftchange provided isn't clear on what 'Brisbane' it's referring to. I'm sure Google will yield hundreds of results for all the uses. This would be the problem which lead to the creation of the ASGC as well as the consensus of the terms of reference to all other Australian cities in Wikipedia. --AtD (talk) 10:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

hi shiftchange, here is the link with a map showing the abs and australian standard geographical classification definition of brisbane metro area, used in censuses, price indexes, govt stats, city GDP calculations, workforce, etc. http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/8EA943A639BE6767CA2576320019FDC1/$File/12160_jul%202009_qld%20maps.pdf i also provided another link to another copy of this map earlier, zoomed into just the brisbane SD on the census data page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.63.196 (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

~~I cannot see any map of the Brisbane metropolitan area delineated on the pdf above~~. I have now found the pdf map on page 161 which is clearer than the one below. I see a small map of the statistical division of Brisbane and surrounds which would most probably best represents the Brisbane metropolitan area. Then I see the coastshop.com map showing part of South East Queensland and one of Brisbane. Assuming that the ~~2nd map~~ pdf map is the one we would use to define what you are suggesting the Brisbane article should be about then would you agree that the climate temperature claiming the minimum record is false because Amberley, Queensland which lies within ~~the darker part of the map~~ this area, has reached a lower temperature of -4.9 degrees? Can you see how confusing this is.

I still cannot see where the Scenic Rim Council is shown to be part of the Brisbane metropolitan area either. Nor can I understand why the Brisbane City Council page, an article about a local government body should be about a geographical region. Isn't the first sentence on the Brisbane City Council page false? How would you correct this or are you comfortable with the ambiguity? Can you see you want to have it both ways and not I. You want to have the Brisbane article have a wide context, contrary to how it is used in Wikipedia in many other articles, but then use it in another context, where parts of it are excluded, for example, temperature records. The we must then refer to what is commonly known as Brisbane as the Brisbane City Council or even the less used City of Brisbane. I am not trying to be an expert as alleged or be disruptive. I am simply trying to understand things correctly so I can be confident that my future editing is accurate. - Shiftchange (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

hi shiftchange, in fact a TINY proportion of the scenic rim council is defined as being in the brisbane metro area (a strip on the very easternmost part). As far as temp is concerned, the temperatures listed are actually refering to Brisbane CBD (postcode 2000), which is chosen as a (usually) central location of a metro area from which to take figures on climate. indeed, there will be suburbs within and outside the BCC LGA that have recorded lower temperatures, but because it would be very complex to have to include CBD, some bayside suburbs, nothern, western, southern, etc. articles for any city tend just to use the CBD as a simple, supposedly central, point of reference. in sydney it is not central but in the far east, and the outer western suburbs of sydney get far hotter and far colder (much more difference than anything in brisbane) but, call it illogical (i might even be inclined to agree), but its just a simple point of reference.

To the Brisbane City Council article, youre right, its very confusing. Upon closer observation of the article, it is in fact in the category "LGAs in queensland" and is linked (at the bottom with the list) to the LGA for "City of brisbane" also the table at the right side is the same table used for an LGA, with area, population etc, the name of the table even was "city of brisbane" -- clearly this is an article on the city of brisbane, rather than the BCC. All it took me was to change a few references and the article is now in line with all other LGA articles, which it is listed as one, and refers to the city of brisbane, and is primarily about the LGA, with a large section called "Governance" --- to do this i looked at the models of other LGA articles, such as the city of sydney and the city of melbourne, it was, but for the name, already largely in line with these. This should clear a lot of the ambiguity, and makes it a lot more consistant. Granted, the article is not particularly detailed, but looking at the articles for other LGAs, it does indeed appear highly detailed (and much longer). That article was really about the LGA and was listed as an LGA article, but under the name of the governing authority rather than the name of the LGA. i have fixed these things up to put it in line with the other LGA articles, and in time hope to change the name of the article to "City of Brisbane", as all other LGA articles are named, and have "Brisbane City Council" redirect to it (the section on governance) -- this is what is done in other LGA articles, ie city of sydney, city of melbourne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.63.196 (talk) 07:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

New info Box picture?

should the info box picture have multiple images in it as it does in Melbourne and Perth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.98.116 (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Fully support this! Make it happen! Let me know if u need help (but ask in 2 weeks, exams coming up) Ezykron (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No one else seems to want one, but I made a very rough one anyway. I'm not from Brisbane so probably didn't select the best things to put into this, which is why I made a very rough one as a test.

Like I said, this is a very rough one (The borders are quite messy, and the pictures could be better), but I thought I'd show it to you to see if it is what you were thinking. We are the only 3 who seem to have expressed interest however, and this is since december last year, so I would assume that for now at least, most contributors are happy with the current infobox picture. Anoldtreeok (talk) 02:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea and I think the example looks great. I would definitely support a montage in the infobox. - Shiftchange (talk) 05:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Source on the images (Where did you get them from, who photographed them, what is the licensing? Bidgee (talk) 08:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want to give me some ideas as to what to put in the montage I'll make another test. I don't know Brisbane all too well so the one I made was a bit of guess work as to what would be considered Brisbane's landmarks. I have a lot of time on my hands for the next few weeks so could make another test and to see if anyone else is interested in a new infobox picture as well. Anoldtreeok (talk) 08:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:Brisbane landmarks should help. I would suggest Story Bridge or Gateway Bridge, Brisbane, Treasury Building, Brisbane, possibly The Gabba, ANZAC Square, Brisbane is good, so is one of the skyline, Brisbane City Hall and Queen Street Mall, and all have to be appropriately licensed. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless I missed one, I'm pretty sure all the pictures I used in the example above were put into public domain. Anyway, I'll experiment a bit more, and see what works. Thanks for the suggestions. EDIT: I was wrong about the story bridge picture. Updated licencing on the montage because of it and credited the original creator. If I've done it wrong please correct me.Anoldtreeok (talk) 11:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey there. thanks a lot for the great montage. i had a lot of time on my hands so i managed to find some pictures already off wiki which didnt have any forms of protection. ive used yours as a basis and added a couple more sites so its in line with the melbourne one. take a look on the main page and tell me if you like. i think the pictures compliment eachother very nicely! thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saruman-the-white (talk • contribs) 10:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I made the claim that I had time on my hands but then realised I didn't. So sorry I didn't end up following through on making another picture, but the one that is there now is better than I would have made (I was relying on wikipedia to figure out what were the most notable parts of Brisbane). Good work. Anoldtreeok (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys - I work for Brisbane Marketing and we make all of our images available for use. If you want to use any images for the montage please have a look at the following site [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ascough (talk • contribs) 06:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Too many images in geography section

I know Brisbane has a nice skyline and looks great from space, but is there any need for 3 pictures of the skyline and two aerial/satellite photos ? This is an encyclopedia article, so I suggest picking a couple of the best and leaving the rest. --Biatch (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sister cities

Not trying to get into the same argument as above, but seeing as the sister cities relations are between Brisbane city council, and not Brisbane as a whole? Looking through the previous discussions, I'm not entirely sure what consensus (if any) has been reached, and sorry if this has been brought up before, just thought I'd bring it up.

Melbourne also does this, but unlike here, there's no debate as to what the article refers to, so it's an even bigger wonder there. Maybe I should raise the question there as well. Anoldtreeok (talk) 08:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

On this topic, Brisbane, California suggests that it is a sister city.. Is that correct?? FNQ (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- No, this is the list of sister cities. Bidgee (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  - The link says they're with Brisbane city council, so shouldn't they be on that page and not this one? Anoldtreeok (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Move Article to Brisbane, Queensland

~~I would like to make the suggestion that this article be moved from Brisbane to Brisbane, Queensland so it is in line with the rest of the town and city based articles.~~ FNQ (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The guidelines for names say capital cities are exempt from the "city, state" convention, unless it would cause confusion otherwise. There was a discussion a while back to make that apply to every city/town. I don't really have anything else to add, but I will say I disagree because apart from it being in line with other articles, I don't think there is any real reason to do it. Anoldtreeok (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I would oppose such a change. Brisbane is well known in its own right, and there is not any confusion with the other few Brisbanes that exist.--Dmol (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I strongly oppose such change also, Brisbane is known as Brisbane (excluding its nick names) even outside of Queensland. The only capital city which has such (city, state/territory) is Darwin since it shares notability with Charles Darwin. Bidgee (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose any such move - the city's name is "Brisbane" not 'Brisbane, Queensland". Disambiguation for its own sake is to be avoided. In fact, many of not most of the other Queensland towns and cities should be moved to their common name in line with the precedent set at Toowoomba and Bundaberg. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 11:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Fairy Nuff... Withdrawn. FNQ (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

NO man! I like it how it is :-D but thanks for asking first Ezykron (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

no, the only other brisbane is a town of several thousand in california. clearly this is the brisbane that should be given the brisbane name. (also it was the first brisbane) Saruman-the-white (talk) 11:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Arguments above. Subtropical-man (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Brisbane Media Map

I would argue for the inclusion of the Brisbane Media Map in the media section. No need to mention it's run by QUT, because the site does not seek to promote QUT (note it's not a QUT domain and has no QUT branding, as it's meant to be a public resource). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Houriganamy (talk • contribs) 00:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

2011 Flood

It's common when news is happening that someone adds some current event to an article that will not really be significant months and years later. Amazingly, this article shows the opposite. Currently, Brisbane is under a flood at least as bad as 1974, and the article does not mention it, except one line which uses the deprecated word "recent". Someone who knows some details should update this article. Randall Bart Talk 00:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Added a line to the history section. It is a little too soon to add much more, since we do not know what the medium to long term consequences will be. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm delighted that additions are happening slowly. It will give us time to work out how to do this well. Even expressions like "a flood at least as bad as 1974" are problematic. There will be no agreement on how one measures such things. The river did not get as high this year as in 1974 but there will be other measures by which the recent one will appear to be a worse flood. We must also avoid the article becoming a soap box too on issues such as those "evil insurance companies", and alleged errors of "the authorities". Report the facts and avoid adjectives is my advice. HiLo48 (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

1930 - Story Bridge

Original statement "1930 was a significant year for Brisbane, with the construction of landmarks that helped define the character of the city. The Story Bridge and Brisbane City Hall, then the city's tallest buildings, were both completed. Additionally, the Shrine of Remembrance, in ANZAC Square, became Brisbane's main war memorial.[22]" in incorrect

The story bridge construction commenced in May 1935 it was completed in June 1940 ^[4]

paragraph should read along these lines "1930 was a significant year for Brisbane, with the completion of Brisbane City Hall, then the city's tallest building and the Shrine of Remembrance, in ANZAC Square, which has become Brisbane's main war memorial[22]. These historic buildings along with the Story Bridge, opened in 1940^[5] are key landmarks that help define the character of the city. " BEZALEL2000 (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Banner at top right

Hi guys, this page has come along since a few years back but I still think it could be improved. Does anyone feel the same way as me that the montage at the top right could look a little more professional, or possibly to change it to a single image like sydney? Want to see what other people think or if everyone super loves the current setup. Of course its hard when I'm not showing anything to compare it to but I can fix that shortly. Thanks. EzykronHD (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the montage to a single image, but do agree the montage here doesn't look professional. Some of the images aren't great quality; I think it should look more like the montage on the Melbourne page, or even the Perth page (though I don't like the picture choice in that one - but that's a whole different issue for a whole different article). Anoldtreeok (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

LGAs

Why are Ipswich, Moreton Bay and Scenic Rim included in this page's infobox as being part of Brisbane. I grew up in Moreton Bay and this is the first time I've heard of those areas as being part of Brisbane. I agree they can be considered part of the South East Queensland agglomeration, as stated in the lead paragraph, but to call them part of Brisbane is misleading. LordVetinari (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Brisbane Meetup

	Brisbane Meetup v t e Next: To be decided (watch) Last: Saturday 13 January 2018
See also: Australian events listed at Wikimedia.org.au (or on Facebook)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Brisbane. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Inverted Map

I was looking at the Urban Map and got a mite confused, UQ's north of QUT, WoE? Somebody needs to either flip the map the correct way round or make a note that it's showing South-North not North-South as you'd expect. 118.208.11.20 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC).

Which picture better?

Which picture better to infobox?

View from Kangaroo Point and Mount Coot-tha

Pictures to infobox should show the greatest area / whole city, not a few boats and buildings, therefore prefers the second picture (Mount Coot-tha). Also, in the article is already picture from Kangaroo Point (will be two?), no photos from Mount Coot-tha - the second argument for picture from Mount Coot-tha. However, not everyone wants this picture. What is your opinion and arguments? Which picture better to infobox? Subtropical-man (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Though the second image definitely shows more, I think the first image is more appropriate because I think it represents Brisbane better. To me at least, that's how I picture Brisbane, the skyline and the river. The second image I think would be appropriate maybe for "Urban structure", but I don't think for the main image. Also, I think it's taken from too great a distance, making the buildings look a bit too small for the main image. Just my thoughts. EDIT: Hmm, well, the buildings aren't actually that much smaller than the first image, but still I think the one's in the first image are of a more appropriate size.Anoldtreeok (talk) 01:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

First one. kanga point shows icononic angle of skyline. cootha shows worst angle of skyline with least iconic buildings. and no river! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saruman-the-white (talk • contribs) 15:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I can take a new set of photos of the city when the Soleil building is finished, and the other one also that's being constructed in the city. And I can put them up here and everyone can vote for which ones they prefer the most. If you have any preferred spots you think I should try, just let me know and i'll try to accomodate it. EzykronHD (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Most definately from here (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Brisbane_skyline_bluesky.jpg) or here (http://www.globeimages.net/data/media/34/brisbane_skyline_australia.jpg) as a skyline photo must be from the other side of the river, in order to get in all of the landmark iconic buildings (waterfront, cp1, 111 eagle, riparian, etc). the mt cootha angle gets the shortest and least icononic buildings , and does not show the river, an iconic feature of the city. These are considered the two most defining angles for a skyline shot of brisbane. Saruman-the-white (talk) 10:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Climate section

The Climate section in the article is "defeat". Not counting record temperatures and sea temperatures, writes only about natural disasters etc. There is a lack of basic climate information. In a week I change the name section to "natural disasters" ;) You should create a new article Climate of Brisbane, like as Climate of Sydney. In the new article, you can write about the curiosities, example Dust storms from 23 September 2009 etc. Subtropical-man (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Brisvegas section.

Personally I don't believe it belongs on the Brisbane page, as a "Brisbanite" it's an embarrassment, it was started as a joke as we were the "big country town" with one casino and no class. It does not belong on a wiki page, especially being that we are trying to introduce ourselves as a world city, we don't need and the insult on our page. I have removed it. If someone want to put it back incorporate it into another piece of text but it doesn't warrant a sub-catergory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IsabelleF (talk • contribs) 08:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It's already been restored, multiple times (along with the archived talk page you tried to blank). 69.181.251.214 (talk) 08:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of your opinions, it belongs in the article, firstly because it is welled reference, secondly because its a fairly notable and common attribute that doesn't warrant a new article and even if it does it will be briefly mentioned in this article. Wikipedia is not an advertisement or advocacy for certain topics or in this case cities, removal of section will concomitantly be direct contravention of WP:Neutral. YuMaNuMa (talk) 10:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Main image

This image should be used: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Brisbane_Skyline_Evening.jpg

It is up to date and gives a much better view of the city. The current image only really shows the Eagle st side. Also at night it looks really cool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heugfignf (talk • contribs) 01:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete reference with maleware

Last external link contains virus.77.105.5.225 (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)SERBIA

Skyline photos are very out of date

The article contains photos of the Brisbane skyline that are very out of date, such as the one captioned "the bris skyline, viewed from K. Point, is one of the most extensive in the S. hemisphere". This is most certainly true, however the photo was taken in ~2004, at a time when many (up to a third) of Brisbane's more prominent skyscrapers had not yet been built, and as give an outdated and inaccurate depiction of the skyline.

That angle from Kangaroo Point is indeed easily the best and most iconic, however i wonder if anyone has any more recent ones taken after the competion of soleil, 111 eagle street, skyline appts, etc., buildings which have completely transformed the skyline since then.

That angle is certainly the one to use, but if anyone has a more recent photo to replace that one, and to replace the main title photo (which still shows soleil and 111 eagle with cranes and under construction), that would indeed be good. Many city articles showcase the city's skyline with impressive and "impacting" shots. Given Brisbane's absolutely massive skyline in relation to its size, this would be worth doing here. Saruman-the-white (talk) 12:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

26 May 2012 meetup

	Brisbane Meetup v t e Next: To be decided (watch) Last: Saturday 13 January 2018
See also: Australian events listed at Wikimedia.org.au (or on Facebook)

Please come along to the meetup. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

G20

I'm not good at editing but Brisbane will host the G20 leaders summit in 2014 - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-11/queensland-business-community-welcomes-g20/4123680.

This would be a major event worthy of mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.161.75.113 (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Main/Infobox photo (revisited)

In my opinion, neither the current nor previous infobox image best represents Brisbane. The third one here (CBDandSB) is pretty good... but of the three, the current (from Kangaroo Point) has the poorest quality.

1
2
3
4

4

I nominate #1 (Aerial view of the Brisbane CBD (5275318079).jpg) until a better one is loaded to commons. --Travis Thurston 05:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, I also nominate the first one, by a substantial margin. TravellerQLD ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The previous image was not ideal but is still better than the aerial photo. This photo is extremely out of date. It was taken before Brisbane's current two tallest buildings (Soleil and Infinity) were even built not to mention the obvious absence of 111 Eagle Street. What is the point of showing the Brisbane skyline years ago? The first concern should be being up to date. --Saruman-the-white (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

What about the current image now? It is more aesthetically pleasing, but more importantly, up to date and presents an accurate view of Brisbane's skyline today.--Saruman-the-white (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I like it. It's much better than (Brisbane from Kangaroo Point.jpg). Note: Saruman is using the discussion page while Brisbane Man doesn't while unilaterally reverting users edits. Brisbane Man, just because you choose that as your handle doesn't mean you WP:OWN the page. Use the talk and propose changes please. --Travis Thurston 19:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Saruman, can you upload another version of Brisbane Skyline 2012.png (#4 above)? It looks out of focus on the article page (and in the gallery above) but great when larger. It's by the far the best one to work with as it's up to date with much better lighting than Brisbane from Kangaroo Point.jpg (#2). Perhaps upload the uncropped original to commons so we can get a better look? --Travis Thurston 19:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Travis, sure thing, however you sound a little defensive. You seem to have a personal issue with the current image, however it's been the main image for over two years, you shouldn't craft the page to suit your own ideals. Saruman, I agree we need an updated photo with the new Soleil and Eagle St buildings but I think the new one looks a little too computer-processed and unrealistic. I think the best solution is to contact some local Brisbane wikipedians and see if a local photographer can take some high resolution shots to add to the article ASAP. I've sent out a few messages just then so I'll see what they say. In the mean time the article should stay with an up to date picture. Brisbane Man (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Brisbane Man, I apologize... I'm not trying to be defensive or personal with the subject, it's just that too many times I've run across contributors attempting to own pages and perhaps I get a little frustrated. I attempt to mostly deal with images here on wp and occasionally see editors insist on "their" image is the best when it's clearly not. I see that this is not the case here. Also, I have nothing against file #2, only that of the three (was four), it is clearly worst quality per policy MOS:IMAGES. I look forward see what others bring to the table. Thank you --Travis Thurston 19:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. My main concern is that the photo should include as much of the skyline is as possible (thus a photo taken from Kangaroo Point is usually the best and most visually appealing bet), also, the photo should have been taken after the completion of Soleil and 111 Eagle St, which have dramatically altered the skyline. The current Kangaroo Point photo is not too bad, although it could certainly be more visually appealing and the angle is not quite right to showcase the full extent of the skyline. The following, which are not my work, exemplify the kind of photo we should use as the title image of this article. They showcase the full skyline accurately, aesthetically, and in an up to date manner. http://www.flickr.com/photos/joebrosnan/6719414841/in/photostream ; http://www.flickr.com/photos/joebrosnan/7751073068/in/photostream ; http://www.flickr.com/photos/stanleykozak/7836945386/sizes/h/in/photostream/ ; http://www.flickr.com/photos/timpoulton/7819285198/sizes/k/in/photostream/ ; http://www.flickr.com/photos/damienryan/7814893794/sizes/h/in/photostream/ . We can clearly do so much better. In addition, the photo of the skyline "bluesky?" in the Geography/urban structure section was taken in 2004 (!!!). This photo is a decade old. We may as well upload one of Brisbane during the war and be done with it. The photo is great, the position is great, but it doesn't reflect the skyline today and should also be changed. --Saruman-the-white (talk) 03:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The Joe Brosnan "City of Fire" is awesome... I'm no expert on Brisbane's skyline but it appears it was taken in 2012. Doubt he'll release it as free-use though. --Travis Thurston+ 03:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi guys, just an update. I emailed some of the brisbane photographers and got a reply from "EzykronHD", he said he can go on a photo shoot sometime this week after buying a new tripod. He asked me whether we wanted the new pics from any specific vantage points besides kangaroo point, and also if anyone has any requests for up to date pics of other buildings or landmarks in the CBD area. So far I was going to say above and below the cliffs at Kangaroo Pt from different angles, as well as the Storey Bridge/Newfarm angle, and maybe the Soleil Building and 111 Eagle St. Anything else we should mention? Brisbane Man (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Much appreciated my friend. Saruman-the-white (talk) 01:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I just got an email from him, he mentioned he will go on a Photoshoot either tomorrow or Friday next week, depending on if he can get tomorrow off work. Brisbane Man (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

What about a montage? I have a few images that would look great and could be contenders? 49.176.4.170(talk) 08:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. However, you will need to register to be able to contribute photos and the photos should be uploaded to Wikimedia. All the best Figaro (talk) 09:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Was wondering if anyone would care to make a montage with the following seven images, just to see how it looks? 121.220.222.63 (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

1. Perhaps the top montage image?
Parliament House
3. Japanese Gardens, Mt Coot-tha
4. South Bank parklands
5. Story Bridge at night
6. Goodwill Bridge
7. and maybe this one of the Wheel of Brisbane, or...
Shrine of Remembrance

If people feel the one from Kangaroo Point is of poor quality, which I don't think it is (looks mostly clear to me), then perhaps they could replace that one with another in the montage.

I would be interested to see it too. Also this picture could potentially be used. Brisbane Man (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Those are some great images and I think they'd potentially make a fantastic montage. I especially like the wheel, illuminated Story bridge and night pano from Mt. Coot-tha. Cuboora (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Would anyone be willing to make a montage with these particular photos? 121.220.222.63 (talk) 12:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

A montage with some of the main features such as skyline, war memorial, south bank, parliament house, story bridge/river etc would be a very good idea. Also the current image is very nice although 111 Eagle St and Soleil are still under construction in that image.--Saruman-the-white (talk) 09:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

What do you think of the current group of images? Included is the great panorama from Mount Coot-tha, Shrine of Remembrance, Story Bridge, Southbank Parklands, etc. seem? I try not to focus too much on buildings and instead gave some focus on nature and parklands, but if you feel you want to make a montage with the images I have provided as well as anything else you find significant then go ahead. 121.220.222.63 (talk) 09:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I could make one in the meantime. Only problem is I have no idea how. I do have photoshop but I'm not too sure on how to make a montage for Wikipedia. I tried before reducing the images size for the montage just reduced the quality and made some look stretched and so fourth. Is there an example page on Wikipedia on how to do it? Or can someone explain the easiest way? 121.220.222.63 (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi 121.220.222.63, I recommend waiting a week as there is a brisbane photographer who is about to take some fresh high quality images of the cbd with all if the latest buildings included. It will pay off to wait so that if you make a montage, it includes up to date images of the skyline including the soleil, 111 eagle st, etc. Brisbane Man (talk) 08:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

^ Hear hear. --Saruman-the-white (talk) 09:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes that was my intention, however if you look at the first image I posted, those buildings are there and up to date as that panorama is very recent. 121.220.222.63 (talk) 09:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

That is certainly an up-to-date and good image but maybe an image from Kangaroo Point should be the 'top' image as that is the most iconic skyline view across the river, etc and we should probably have the top one taken when it's not pitch dark so it's easier to see how the city looks. --Saruman-the-white (talk) 00:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Point taken. If a montage is used, do you think the Mount Coot-tha panorama should still be used? 121.220.222.63 (talk) 04:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Was wondering if the photographer capturing new shots of the skyline from KR could include this gorgeous flower, although it's probably not in bloom in Autumn.121.220.222.63 (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi all, sorry about the delay in replying here. I am planning to take some new photos of the city tomorrow afternoon, as long as the weather is ok. I will try to take multiple shots including that flower if its there tomorrow. If anyone has any additional requests I am happy to help, just comment here or email me at ezykron@gmail.com. I will update my post here in the next few days with an update. Thanks guys. EzykronHD (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Just an update, I went on a photoshoot on Thursday afternoon/evening. I got some new pictures, I will upload them here soon. The main angles were Kangaroo Point (afternoon and evening) and the Storey Bridge angle (evening, sun had gone down). I am planning to go back again soon to get some other icons of Brisbane. EzykronHD (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Good man. Much appreciated.--Saruman-the-white (talk) 03:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

No worries! Here's the two best pics I have from Thursday. I will most likely go back again sometime soon. If anyone has any other ideas or landmarks to capture, let me know. EzykronHD (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that first one is excellent, well done! Did you notice if that flower was in bloom? 49.176.4.170 (talk) 07:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I had a look but unfortunately couldn't find it. I'm thinking it may only bloom in certain months. EzykronHD (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

What do people think of this infobox montage? I would of used a day picture for the top, but I need a panorama, Ezykron do you have any panoramas? 49.176.1.101 (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

not sure why anyone is considering the need for a montage. its an encyclopaedia not a travel brochure... same issue was brought up for Sydney's page. we had this discussion a couple of years ago, city's main icon is the bne river, but any city has gardens, war memoriials, and i wouldnt consider the ferris wheel to be a real icon of brisbane. the red cloud picture is pretty, but it belongs on a travel brochure. anything else can be in the article proper 101.171.127.231 (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the second pic with the Wheel is overkill, the gardens pic is a little nondescript and uninspiring, the skyline photo really should be a clear one during the day from the iconic kangaroo point view, and the bottom photo is could be anywhere and is unnecesary. I think if you replaced the bottom one with the new kangaroo point skyline/river photo, and replaced the gardens and second daytime wheel of brisbane photos with a flattering one of moreton bay (which has been of great historical importance to brisbane) it could look very good but one concern would be the fact that at such a small size, so many photos could be very hard to see clearly.--Saruman-the-white (talk) 03:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Climate

How to verify that the books specify the Koppen-Geiger code for the climate? The books are inaccessible, while the map is easily accessible. I was the one who changed the code to Cwa when no one seemed to object, but then realized that it should be Cfa. Now Bidgee is making claims that Cwa is cited in the books! [2] - [3] --Mahmudmasri (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

This map has been raised a number of times at different talk pages, the map itself isn't a verifiable source (though reliable) as it doesn't state that "Foo has a Cfa climate" (Foo = Location), stating such is synthesis. Just because the book sources are not accessible online, doesn't mean they shouldn't be used or relied on (also see WP:SOURCEACCESS). Also please fix your signature, it's currently missing / on the end the <small> tag (ie: should be </small>). Bidgee (talk) 11:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

You still haven't commented on the main discussion and by the way, the source must be accessible if you are basing your dispute upon.

“

If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able do so on your behalf

”

OK, would you please capture an image with your mobile phone or scan the page and post it to me to verify that the book says the code is Cwa not Cfa? Also again it was made in other discussions: it is very impractical and near-impossible to have a source stating the climate code for each location on the surface of the earth, that's why there are colored maps. Wikipedia rules are not made to be against practicality and shouldn't be misused to hinder others from positively contributing. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I sincerely apologise for reverting you, I've got access to the two sources (though one of them is the updated version [2nd ed.]) and both state that Brisbane has a Cfa climate. Not to sure if it was a type when it was added or if it was changed (from Cfa to Cwa) at some point in time. I can email you the two pages if you would like. Bidgee (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Popular culture, list of famous people.

I twice removed a list of actors and a director from the "Popular culture" section and it was twice reverted. This section should not be for listing individuals, which should be listed under famous entertainers or notable people. To be honest, I don't think the section should even exist for a city the size of Brisbane, as there is an almost endless list of famous people that could quickly swamp the article.

My suggestion is that we start a List of notable people from Brisbane, and move them there. Similar lists exist for other large cities.

Comments welcome. I won't revert again as it's 2-all now. --Dmol (talk) 08:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

^ Macquarie ABC Dictionary. The Macquarie Library Pty Ltd. 2003. p. 121. ISBN 0 876429 37 2. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help)
^ 1
^ Macquarie ABC Dictionary. The Macquarie Library Pty Ltd. 2003. p. 121. ISBN 0 876429 37 2. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help)
^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Story_Bridge
^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Story_Bridge,_Brisbane

[1] Macquarie ABC Dictionary. The Macquarie Library Pty Ltd. 2003. p. 121. ISBN 0 876429 37 2. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help)

[2] 1

[3] Macquarie ABC Dictionary. The Macquarie Library Pty Ltd. 2003. p. 121. ISBN 0 876429 37 2. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help)

[4] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Story_Bridge

[5] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Story_Bridge,_Brisbane

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]