Talk:Adelaide/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Adelaide. 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

Southern Ocean?

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

The second sentence in this article starts like this: "It is a coastal city beside the Southern Ocean,"... I changed this in ..."beside the Indian Ocean"... A few hours later I was reverted with the comment that Australians still perceive it as the Southern Ocean. That doesn't seem to be very NPOV to me.

I do not doubt that Australians perceive it as such (I have travelled extensively in Australia), but when you click through to Southern Ocean the article states that this ocean ends at 60° S. Adelaide does not lie between the South Pole and 60° S.

I believe my change was correct, but the article should also state that many Australians do not agree with the fact that Adelaide sits beside the Indian Ocean. WHB 11:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It's actually more than just a cultural perception. Cartographically, the expanse of water from Australia's southern bounds is still annotated as the Southern Ocean. Indeed, in at least Western Australia and Tasmania (I am unable to confirm for South Australia as yet), this sea area is officially gazetted as the Southern Ocean.--cj | talk 14:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. Shouldn't the article then explain that from the Australian viewpoint Adelaide does border the Southern Ocean, but for (most of) the rest of the world it borders the Indian Ocean? WHB 19:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's on Gulf St. Vincent. But that's beside te point. As far as I know, the Southern Ocean is a somewhat arbitrary concept - Some say it exists, others prefer to say South Atlantic, South Pacific and Indian oceans. It's particularly ambiguous in Adelaide's case, as the city is about equidistant from the undisputied Indian and Pacific oceans. I favour using the "Southern Ocean."--Yeti Hunter 23:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Adelaidians (?) and Australians, perhaps unfortunately due to the common usage on Australian maps, no more "get to decide" the name of the oceans of the world than do the people of, say, Chile, who refuse to use "Pacific" and have their own name for it on all their maps. The group that does is the IHO (see the WP Southern Ocean article for references....the Adelaide article should not be cluttered with IHO references, I should think!) .

For good or bad (bad if you're a fan of Australian maps and terminology), they have decided that Australia is a continent sitting in the Indian Ocean, with the Pacific along its eastern side. They publish this with carefully delineated borders for these water bodies (see that mentioned in the WP Great Australian Bight article. So, certainly not for Australian use, but for a worldwide English enclopedia, its "Indian Ocean", not "Southern Ocean." The IHO very clearly ruled (after a vote of member nations) that the "Southern Ocean" stops at 60 degrees south, and north of that its the Indian Ocean. Not debatable, unless you want to try to overturn the worldwide and WP-wide acceptance of the IHO as the authority on these matters. Water bodies that Australia does not share with other nations are a different matter, of course. This is how world geographers (and the IHO) avoid having several names for various sides of various oceans. Having done the South Coast Track in Tasmania and looking southwest off the cliffs (an amazing place; huge old growth trees, remote beaches) and saying something to a local about the big Indian Ocean waves and getting an incredulous stare, I know this doesn't make sense locally.....But it's an international encyclopedia.DLinth 18:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the IHO did not clearly rule. The vote was split 50/50. Half voted for 60 degrees and the other half voted for various parts of the Australian coast. Because of this the boundary has never been officially adopted, so technically, according to the IHO the ocean does not exist at all. IHO member countries are in effect permitted to define their own boundaries for the Southern Ocean meaning there are many "offical" boundaries with 60°S, 40°S, 35°S and no such ocean existing at all being the most common. For example Oceanographers world wide consider the Subtropical Front (where cold antarctic water meets warm subtropical water and thus the most logical boundary) the boundary of the Southern Ocean and this is 40°S. Australia recognises it as bordering our coastline (and bordering the Indian Ocean at Cape Leeuwin), using the Oceanographers definition it does (with the Great Australian Bight wedged between the coast and the ocean). There can be only one of two positions for "an international encyclopaedia", either what Australia considers the boundary to be or no such thing as the Southern Ocean. As WP already acknowledges it's existence we must use Australia as the boundary perhaps qualifying it with mention that most countries define their own boundary. Wayne 06:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Not true. Half voted for 60 degrees, and most of the rest voted for limits very close to that....only a couple (not 14) voted for it to come to the Australian Coast. "IHO member nations are permitted to define their own boundaries" is fiction. Your 40 degree S sentence is also fiction....read the Southern Ocean WP article or other sources....it's the convergence zone at 60, not 40, that most oceanographers and hydrologists use. No, most countries do NOT define the names of oceans next to them; those that try like Chile get no international or WP acceptance at all.

Times Atlas (UK, #1 world atlas), CIA World Fact Book, US Board on Geographic Names, etc., etc., and nearly all non-Australian atlases and maps strictly show the Southern Ocean as below 60 degrees lat. All sources go on and on about it being defined as an ocean due to its hydro characteristics....a cold, polar current circling Antarctica. So 35 degrees south is particularly far "off the charts" in the world's view....that's the same lat. as the Mediterranean! (for a "polar" ocean!??) Seems like all around WP, most atlases, most world maps, the IHO is being given the first and last word on this.DLinth 19:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

As long as Australia is not described as being "in" either the Pacific or Indian oceans, but separating them, I think this is sufficiently accurate. If not, I wonder which oceans the Americas and Africa sit "in" (not separate)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanBrodman (talk • contribs) 06:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Aerial photo overlay

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello all,

Now that the article has a good aerial photograph , does anyone fancy having a go at creating a legend for it using the Overlay template? It could be used in the same way it was in the Brisbane article. Cheers - Gobeirne (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Terminology- "province"

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the introduction, the use of the word "province" for the state of South Australia is wrong.

South Australia, like all the other states of Australia, were "colonies" until federation on 1-1-1901. None of them have ever been known as "provinces".

Was the author of this article Australian? It seems such a strange error to make. Maybe he/she thinks we are the Canada of the south. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanBrodman (talk • contribs) 06:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I initially thought this too but the Proclamation of South Australia defined it as a province. Further digging makes it even murkier; there are references to SA 'reverting' to a crown colony in 1842, but I can't seem to find a decent reference or explanation for this. Time to find a good SA history book I think! haydn_likes_carpet (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Ugg boots from Adelaide, 1965

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just came across an interesting detail from Adelaide. Appears that ugg boots were first created by an Adelaidean in the 1960s! Still trying to get cross-confirmation from other sources though. See comment by User:Daveosaurus. Btw, if anyone else is interested in helping getting a more balanced perspective in the Ugg boots article, please step forward. The article has been targeted by the overseas holder of trademark 'ugg' (not recognised in Australia) which is determined to add a commercial bias. Donama (talk) 06:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

citation

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

third paragraph contains a citation needed followed by a citation. why? is this citation not good enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altormainstream (talk • contribs) 12:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it's been fixed now. Donama (talk) 02:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeedy it has. Altormainstream (talk) 07:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Streets template for Adelaide streets, lanes terraces

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I've been drafting a template here to put at the bottom of article about the streets in the Adelaide CBD grid. Suggestions? Should we include notable lanes or North Adelaide also? It is based on the one used for Melbourne Hoddle grid, which is at the bottom of the Melbourne CBD street articles. Feel welcome to pitch in and edit there. Donama (talk) 07:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I would support expanding it to include all of Light's Vision (ie, North Adelaide and parklands too). You could simply add another section for "North Adelaide" and "Parklands". In fact, it might be better to categorise them by street type, ie "Streets" (which are within the city plan), "Terraces" (which border onto parkland), "Roads" (which transit the Parklands), "Drives" (which go through the Parklands via the "scenic route", eg Plane Tree Drive, War Memorial Drive...) and "Squares" (self explanatory). "Streets" could then be further divided into east-west and north-south sections. If there are any notable lanes, I'd support their inclusion too.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 11:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I think there's already a template for squares and parks of Adelaide and North Adelaide, so might need to look at merger with that one. Donama (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Adelaidean

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Both Melbourne and Sydney mention the term for their residents in the first paragraph. The word Adelaidean is buried in demographics and yet is not immediately obvious. If indeed this is the correct term, then it should be in the introductory paragraph. --CloudSurfer (talk) 11:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The term Adelaidean is almost unknown in this state. Ask a resident what he is and 99 times out of 100 he will say South Ozzie. This may be because it is almost the same thing. Almost 80% of the states population live in Adelaide and another 10% live within an hours drive. Wayne (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Putting "Sydneysider" in the lead paragraph looks pretty silly to me, a clear case of undue weight to a minor detail. Putting the term in the body of the article, as for Adelaidean, seems about right. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

isn't the term Radelaidean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.242.104 (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Not unless this is the reference to the current SA Premier, Mike Rann.Boron eye (talk) 11:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Adelaidean (again)

Latest comment: 13 years ago15 comments3 people in discussion

The reference provided http://www.adelaide.edu.au/adelaidean does not show that a resident of Adelaide is an Adelaidean. It is a University of Adelaide publication so if it demonstrates anything it is that a graduate or student at Adelaide University is an Adelaidean. If the term "Adelaidean" was a common term (by "common" I mean common enough to warrant it being in the lead), a clear and unambiguous reference would be easy to find. I'll add it's waaaaay out of balance putting it in the 1st paragraph too. The first paragraph should summarise the article. Compared to the other things in the 1st para - all well known and easily referenced - the little used adjective "Adelaidean" is out of place. Adpete (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll agree that the Adelaide Uni reference above is not appropriate for the reasons you mention, but I disagree with your conclusion. There are numerous sources that confirm the well-known use of the word "Adelaidean" - here are a few I just found: an article by Bernard Salt, a geological survey of the region, and a century-old report of an interstate cricket match. Of those, the geological survey is probably closest to a "reliable secondary source" - it clearly verifys "Adelaidean" as the adjectival form of "Adelaide". The fact that it is in the context of the Adelaide Geosyncline rather than the people of Adelaide is neither here nor there. Couple that with the Bernard Salt article comparing Adelaide to Vienna and that's pretty much a wrap. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 04:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think the geological one is the worst of the three, because it's a scientific term for the rocks, rather than the people or city of Adelaide. It's not uncommon to have a technical adjective when there's no corresponding common use. (e.g. Bible scholars use "Pauline" to refer to the writings of Paul the Apostle). I'll concede the other two, though one is a rather light-hearted article and the other is a century old. There's also this from a UniSA publication.[1] Even so, I think it's pretty scant evidence. I contend the adjective is rare (e.g. compared to the adjectives "Australian" or "South Australian" which can be found in abundance). For instance, Google News has 1 hit for "Adelaidean", 1200 for "South Australian". I'd suggest replacing "widely used" with "occasionally used". Adpete (talk) 07:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I'm comfortable with "Adelaidean" - why put a subjective opinion on its usage? What's wrong with: The adjectival form "Adelaidean" is used in reference to the city and its residents.? While you (plural) decide, I've been bold and removed the adjective. Pdfpdf (talk) 08:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, what I removed is an adverb, isn't it? Pdfpdf (talk) 08:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong is its usage is rare, I contend. Adelaide is also called "The 20 minute city", "a big country town", or simply "boring". I've heard all of them more frequently than "Adelaidean". To put something in the lead, especially the first paragraph, it must be common. Adpete (talk) 09:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you contend its usage is rare. Others contend otherwise. Yes, I too have heard "The 20 minute city" and "The city of churches" more frequently. Conversely, I have heard "a big country town", or simply "boring", less frequently. So what?

Extrapolating your reply: "WP:I just don't like it" - Yes, you have made that abundantly clear. Several times. So what?

I repeat: What's wrong with: The adjectival form "Adelaidean" is used in reference to the city and its residents.? And could your reply be a little more objective this time please? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

To put something in the lead, especially the first paragraph, it must be common. - Why? It must be true. It would be best if it had a supporting reference. But why must it be common? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Whilst it is very unscientific, may I draw your attention the the frequency with which such term appears in the above talk page? --Yeti Hunter (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. It's not just "I don't like it", but I also gave objective evidence, namely that reliable sources of its usage are few, e.g. (by one small sample point), it's about 1/1000 th as common as the term "South Australian". As for why it needs to be common to be in the lead, WP:LEAD says, "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources," But I can see I'm not winning anyone over so I'll leave it. Adpete (talk) 04:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

There are multiple issues with the lead. It looks like it has been added to piecemeal over several years. You're probably right that it doesn't belong in the first paragraph of the lead, but until someone can be bothered with a rewrite I think that's where it will stay. On another point, I recall seeing an infobox for some type of city, perhaps US cities, which included an "adjectival" entry. I'll see if I can find that.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Found it: template:infobox settlement is the one.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeti Hunter seems to have a more mellow approach to the topic than me. As I'm quite comfortable with his POV, I'll withdraw to the sidelines and watch. Best wishes to you both. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(P.S. I don't think I've ever put 12 colons at the start of a comment before. Pdfpdf (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC))

Yeah the infobox entry sounds good. But even the lead's OK if two good faith editors are happy. So I'm back on the sidelines too :) Adpete (talk) 11:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Demographics

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Needs an update. Map of overseas-born residents has changed vastly since 2006, with many more South Asians and Africans moving to Adelaide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.135.140 (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait until the results of this year's census are published.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Queen Adelaide

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I changed "Queen Adelaide, the German-born consort of King William IV" to "Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen, Queen of the United Kingdom as the wife of King William IV" because it is more accurate and more precise. She was not born in Germany (German Empire forming 80 years after her birth and 20 years after her death) and it does not hurt to specify what she was queen of and that she was queen due as wife of the king. Surtsicna (talk) 11:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Useful Adelaide resource

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In case you haven't got quick access to a map of Adelaide suburb boundaries, just wanted to paste this link in. Perhaps there's a spot where this could be put for future reference? http://www.health.sa.gov.au/mentalhealth/Portals/0/metro-suburbs-sa-090928.pdf Donama (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Santos

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Are Santos still based in Adelaide now that the tallest building itself, regardless of the residence, has been rebadged from Santos to Westpac? Timeshift 20:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. They moved to the new Flinders Link building on Flinders St along with IAG.--cj | talk 01:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Woodside is actually Australia's largest oil company, not Santos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.38.134.200 (talk) 13:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Most expensive electricity in the world

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wayne - I'm pretty sure the front page of yesterday's Australian was suggesting that renewable energy targets are responsible for about half of the recent rise in electricity prices in SA (and the carbon tax the other half). It certainly can't be used as a reference for the assertion that privatisation and price gouging is responsible. The claims are completely unreferenced, and an Enron-style scam like you've described will require pretty good sources. Also, I don't think that we need a detailed description of the politics and scandal of ETSA over the last ten years in this article - that'd probably belong more in Energy in South Australia, which is currently a dog's breakfast and not something I'm eager to tackle just yet. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Flinders University Image

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The current image illustrating Flinders isn't clear, most of the trees obscure the actual building and its basically just parkland. Including a picture of the humanities section of Flinders is the way to go, especially considering that division is ranked one of the best in the country and the building is depicted clearly. 124.182.244.133 (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

"... the humanities section ... is ranked one of the best in the country" - do you have a suitable reference for that comment, or is it just your opinion? If the latter, then the comment will have to be deleted from the photo caption; and it doesn't seem very appropriate anyway, given the striking lack of people in the photo. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

"good article" ??

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

How can this article be a "good article" without a picture of the city? Other users on here have also mentioned it but no one seems to care. Can someone please upload a photo of the city?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.90.219.63 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 23 June 2007 (ACST).

Done.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamiec1962 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 23 June 2007 (ACST).

There are several pictures of the city in the article, so your point is moot. If you are unhappy with what's there, fix it yourself.--cj | talk 06:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The annual sunshine hours are plainly incorrect. There has been error in adding bom stats. Adelaide has at least 2600 hrs to 2700 depending on which weather station. The 2300 mentioned is less than melb and a significant error — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.98.130 (talk) 10:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

China town

Latest comment: 10 years ago32 comments13 people in discussion

I think it is Australian city. On this page are few photos and you wouldn't place photo of china town because it is small enclave and Australians live in this country and Adelaide. chinese are small grup they have your country and cities and they have enclave in many parts of world. According to me photo of china town is unusual. 62.141.209.167 (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we remove the picture? Because a 'Chinese culture enclave' is not representative of Adelaide? As a resident it does make sense to me to have a picture of Chinatown (otherwise known as Moonta St) here because it's a well-known food/restaurant and entertainment precinct in the city. Donama (talk) 02:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we should remove this photo because it looks horrible on page about Adelaide 62.141.209.167 (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear 62.141.209.167

Please do NOT put a space at the start of the line of your postings.
Please DO sign your postings with 4"~" (i.e. ~~~~). This lets us know who said what, and when they said it.

Getting to the point: Am I correct in saying that you think that this photo:

"looks horrible"? Really? Both Donama and I do not necessarily agree with you. We have both read what you have written, and don't really understand the point you are presenting. Do you think you could clarify your statement for us? Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what is hard to understand about the question itself. He/she doesn't believe a picture of a small part of Adelaide is relevant to Adelaide as a whole, so doesn't think it should be in the article. I disagree, however. Just because it is not a significant or large part of Adelaide, that doesn't mean it's not worthwhile. The Sydney article has an image of the suburb of Cabramatta in the demographics section, pointing out it is home to a large proportion of Vietnamese. Surely there are many places around the world that have area's home to a large number of Vietnamese people, and not the only part of Sydney to have a large proportion of people of a certain group. That doesn't mean the image should be removed.

In short, I don't think it should be removed. Anoldtreeok (talk) 10:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Australian culture is completely other than Chinese and photos of Chinese culture unnecessary. Photos of Chinese culture schould be in the articles about China. I saw that similar photos are in articles about other Australian cities. According to me it shouldn't be. We can't live without Chinese product and I think We should not let for dominance of Chinese for example in wikipedia. We ourselves create domination of Chinese. About Adelaide are few photos and it shows culture of Australia because Chinese in Australia are minority. A lot of cities in the world have china towns. I think it is strange you dont't agree with me. 62.141.209.167 (talk) 12:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we are all very interested by your point of view, but disagree. "Chinatown" is a part of Adelaide, just like Victoria Square and the Adelaide Oval are. We see no reason to remove ANY of those three. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

(P.S. As I said before: Please DO sign your postings with 4"~" (i.e. ~~~~). This lets us know who said what, and when they said it.)

In my opinion Australian culture is completely other than Chinese. You must agree with me at this point. Less intelligent users can think when he see this photo that in Australia is chinese culture and most people in Australia are Chinese and Australian culture is same as Chinese. I agree that is part of Adelaide but in article about Australian city shouldn't be photo about chinese and their culture. 62.141.209.167 (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I disagree. Australian culture is not quite as homogenous as you seem to think. Donama (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

But it is not under the absolute domination of Chinese and for me it is very strange placing this photo on this page. Is it not enough you that Chinese are everything. We ourselves create this domination for example we place photo of this culture on page about Australian cities. You should remove it. 62.141.209.167 (talk) 12:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

We all thank you for explaining your opinion to us, but we all disagree with you.

It is just one picture on a page containing many pictures. The many other pictures clearly illustrate that Adelaide is NOT under chinese domination; they illustrate that Moonta Street is just one small and unusual street in Adelaide.

"in Australia is chinese culture and most people in Australia are Chinese and Australian culture is same as Chinese." - Not at all. The fact that it is only one picture of many indicates that: most of Adelaide culture is NOT Chinese; most of of Adelaide is NOT under Chinese domination.

"for example we place photo of this culture on page about Australian cities" - No. The picture was taken by an Australian from Adelaide, and placed on the page by an Australian from Adelaide.

"You should remove it." - No. For all the reasons given above, we should NOT remove it.

Never-the-less, thank you for explaining your opinion to us. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That is one small part of city but it shows chinese culture you should place other photos for example adelaide oval, Victoria Square. In my opinion you make huge mistake. 62.141.209.167 (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That is one small part of city - Yes, we've all said that.

but it shows chinese culture - Yes, we've all said that too.

you should place other photos for example adelaide oval, Victoria Square. - We have:

The General Post Office (left) and Treasury buildings (right) on Victoria Square, 1950.

Adelaide Oval during a cricket match in 2006.

That's why I mentioned them. (i.e. because they are already on the page.)
In my opinion you make huge mistake. - Yes, we know you think that.
What we don't understand is WHY you think that.
We have all gone to quite a bit of effort to try to explain to you why we think differently from you.
And you have been quite thorough in making sure we are aware that you are unhappy.
But I'm afraid that I don't really understand just what it is that you are unhappy about.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't have much to add, except that it is under the demographics heading. The picture represents a particular demographic within Adelaide. The rest of the article has pictures relating to the various aspects of Australia within Adelaide, to me it seems logical to put an image like this under the demographics heading. Anoldtreeok (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea if you were in Adelaide but I haven never been in Adelaide. When I see this photo I imagine Adelaide as Chinese city. This is caused by you. You cheat most users of wikipedia and everybody imagine Adelaide as Chinese city. Cheers 62.141.209.167 (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Every one here has been very patient with you, but I think patience has run out. To be blunt, if you look at the mix of photos on this article and picture Adelaide as a Chinese city, then the problem is with you. Every photo on this article, even the one showing the entrance to Chinatown, shows mainly European style architecture or people of clearly European descent. While others have been polite, it seems clear to me that you have some problem with this article reflecting the fact that Adelaide has a Chinese community. Why that is, I don't know but it has a whiff of racism - one way or the other. Finally, the Melbourne article also has a picture of its Chinatown, and Sydney has a picture of an entrance to its Vietnamese district. However, to conclude from those photos that Melbourne is a Chinese city and Sydney is a Vietnamese city you would have to wilfully suspend any rational thought processes. This discussion has gone on long enough - I do not believe your concerns are genuine. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

And I'll throw in one last point I don't think has been mentioned yet. The text in the article makes it clear Adelaide isn't a Chinese city. I mean, it doesn't blatantly say "Adelaide isn't a Chinese city", but it explains its demographics, which gives the image context. Anoldtreeok (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I write about Adelaide but I am not happy very much that articles about Sydney and Melbourne are similar photos because on one article about Australian city can be photo of China town. Photos of china town and districts which are on Sydney article and Melbourne article. It is too much photos of China town on articles about Australian cities. I can accept photo on Adelaide article but that you place similar photos on articles about Sydney and Melbourne. We can't say that Australia is China but photos of China town on articles about 3 Australian cities suggest it. I like Chines but photos of this culture can be placed on articles about Chinese cities. Cheers 62.141.209.167 (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Chinese are mionority in Australia. You placed few photos of Adelaide and why did you placed photo of China Town. China town are in a lot of cities in the world for example: London, Toronto. Cheers Revision as of 03:15, 12 December 2010 62.141.215.28

Here's my opinion, for what it's worth. I've lived in three states in this country and found chinatowns in the capital cities of each. In each, chinatown is more than just a Chinese town. It is a shopping attraction. It is a dining mecca (especially in Adelaide where it is conveniently beside Central Market). It is a tourist attraction. It is an area with history. It is very much a part of the city in which it is located. It is also an area most likely to be noted on tourist maps (my opinion based on experience). Chinatown, in my view, is just as representative of the capital city in which it is located as the plethora of Chinese restaurants in Australia are representative of the Australian diet. I see no reason to remove a picture of Chinatown.--~ ~ : Lincoln Cooper : ~ ~ (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Culture and architecture of Australia representative this country. Architecture, art and culture of China representative China. It is my opinion. Revision as of 23:01, 13 December 2010 62.141.215.28

With all respect, whether and to what degree the image in question represents Australian culture is, I believe, irrelevant. As it happens, I believe that it is representative of Australian culture but, just as this article is not about Australian culture, nor is this talk page the forum for such a discussion.

Aside from any copyright issue, I think there is one simple test on whether to include it; namely, Does the image depict a readily recognisable feature in Adelaide? My view is that it does, on the grounds that most people who regularly frequent the city know of it and can give directions to it. Less relevantly, I've also known people (myself included) to use it as a landmark when informing friends of where to meet each other.

Nonetheless, you are entitled to your opinion and I respect your right to express it. In future, though, I must insist that you please be so kind to add your opinions in a new paragraph to avoid them getting mixed in with others'. Additionally, please sign your comments either by entering four tildes (the '~' sign on your keyboard) or by clicking the signature and timestamp button above the editing box. Thank you and regards --~ ~ : Lincoln Cooper : ~ ~ (talk) 13:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear 62.141.209.167, 62.141.213.8 and 62.141.215.28.
You have asked the same or similar questions several times, and have got the same or similar very polite answers from a variety different of people, several times.
Hence, WE ALL KNOW YOUR OPINION. And also, WE ALL DISAGREE WITH YOU. (Also, PLEASE SIGN YOUR MESSAGES WITH 4~.)
If any of the above sentences are NOT clear, please do not hesitate to ask for clarification, and one of us will happily do so.
But please, do not continue to repeat yourself (yourselves?) and please do not continue to ignore our replies. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You are stupid people you placed photo of china town because Australia is not China and you should place more photo which show Australian culture in Adelaide. Yours faithully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.141.218.198 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Given your level of civility and the fact you've clearly not listened to the conversation above, we'll be sure to ignore it. Donama (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me. Here I thought that it was a fly-by IP that was removing the Chinatown photo in recent days for whatever reason. But the whole time, it's part of a wider campaign to have the Adelaide article look all anglo-saxon and misrepresentative. Incredible.

Wikipedia works off consensus. We have a consensus to have the photo there. If you don't like it, you're welcome to your views but it is not a consensus view. The photo stays. Timeshift (talk) 23:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Well those last 4 edits constitute disruptive editing for which the IP could be banned instead. Doesn't help if that individual doesn't use a static IP though I guess. Donama (talk) 04:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

If it gets to the point that blocks aren't working then it would be likely that it will be semi protected from IP's and new accounts. Bidgee (talk) 04:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

This photo isn't from Adelaide!!! This photo was taken in Bejing!!!! You have placed photo from Bejing in article about Adelaide!!!! This is huge mistake!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.141.216.6 (talk) 10:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Clearly our IP is taking the piss. I suggest any further submissions on this issue be removed from the talk page per WP:TALK ("removing trolling" being the relevant passage).--Yeti Hunter (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it's no longer a dispute but just pure disruption. After rolling back the IP's latest disruption, I reported them to WP:AIV and pointed out that they has also been edit warring against and established consensus (and linked to this section). The IP has been blocked for 72 hours, but if they pop-up again I think some long term semi-protection maybe in order! Bidgee (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The bizarre bit about all this is that the person's quirky standard of English suggests a person from the Asian region, my guess is it's some obscure intra-regional racism which for some reason has found its way to this little quiet corner. Whatever way, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. And to the IP, for the most part, "Chinatown" is nothing to do with China - certainly in Perth where I live, the preponderance of those one sees around Chinatown are "Overseas Chinese" from South-East Asia whose ancestral link to China, if one even exists, would probably be dozens of generations back. Orderinchaos 21:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Why have you placed this photo in article about Queen Charlotte?! Article about Queen Charlotte has the same connection with this photo as article about Adelaide. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.141.215.217 (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC) I can't unterstand you. We should create Australian culture in article about city of Australia. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.141.215.217 (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't believe the Chinatown image is getting removed again. Why? Can we temporarily get IP protection on this page? Timeshift (talk) 02:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Jewish community

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The addition of such a detailed section on one particular ethnic or religious group seems a bit anomalous for a general article - there are many different groups (Scots, Welsh, Irish, German, Afghan, Chinese, Greek, Italian, Vietnamese, etc., to name just a few) which have emigrated to Adelaide over the course of its history and made significant contributions to its present-day culture. To include sections on each and every one of them in this article would make it overly long. Perhaps this section could be moved to a separate article on "Multicultural influences on Adelaide's development and culture". Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 08:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Photographic coverage of Religions in Adelaide

(Perhaps this is a new/separate topic, rather than a sub-topic?)

Extending on from Bahudhara's opening ... (Yes, this looks like a minefield to me - let's see if I can enter it without being blown to bits? After all, in my opinion, Bahudhara seems to have made a good start!)

Looking at pictures, we have one of the Catholic Cathedral, two of the Mosque, none of the Anglican Cathedral, and none of the Synagogue. Nor any of any of the other "Protestant" or "Non-Christian" religions.

It seems obvious to me, (though perhaps not to others) that pictures of the Catholic Cathedral and the Anglican Cathedral should be included.

Beyond that, we could chose "attractive" or "interesting" pictures, but the subjective nature of this is problematic. (e.g. Personally, I think Clayton church on the corner of Portrush Road and the Parade is attractive, but then, Scots church and Holy Trinity Church, Adelaide, both on North Terrace, are similarly attractive. And others, too. etc., ad infinitum)

What do others think? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

One reason I added the photo of the blue plaque at the Adelaide Mosque is that the otherwise very comprehensive reference cited (Colonial Cousins) contains a factual error on page 193, where it claims: "These wealthy cameleers contributed towards the building of Australia's first mosque, which was constructed in 1906 in William Street, Perth." The plaque demonstrates that the Adelaide Mosque predates the one in Perth by 17-18 years.

I agree that "Religions in Adelaide" is a complex topic that needs to be expanded in a separate article. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh. Well, that's difficult. However, I think the picture of the Mosque is more relevant to the Adelaide page than the picture of the plaque, and I continue to think that two Mosque-related pictures on this page is excessive. Thus, I come to the same conclusion as you: (viz: "Religions in Adelaide" is a complex topic that needs to be expanded in a separate article.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Sister cities?

Latest comment: 10 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Why arent the sister cities of adelaide put up on this page? They were added but removed by user CJ because s/he stated that the cities of Wuhan, Austin, Christchurch, Georgetown and Himeji were sister cities of the city of adelaide (5000) not the metro area of adelaide. however all of the formention cities have links to this page as the sister city of their city rather than the City of Adelaide. i think that this is the page that should show adelaide's sister cities rather than that of the City of Adelaide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.1.196 (talk) 12:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

They are sisters of the "City of Adelaide", not the Adelaide Metropolitan area. (I guess I'll manually have to go and change all the sister city pages.) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What evidence/citations do you have that they are sisters of city of adelaide rather than of adelaide? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.1.196 (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a joke. Councils may create the sister city relationships but those relationships are not between the councils but the greater metropolitan areas! How can a council of 20,000 people, roughly the size of Murray Bridge, have a sister relationship with Houston? Or Chinese cities of over 5 million? Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 12:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC) Quit trolling.

Sorry, what's your point? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

We have the same situation as Melbourne yet we cannot choose the correct decision? In Himeji the footpath has plaques for al its sister cities and for Adelaide it says Adelaide! Not "The City of Adelaide" or the "City of Adelaide council". It is a disgrace that we dont have our sister cities shown on this page. Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 12:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, what's your point? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

This is reconcilable considering councils have sister councils ala Brooklyn#Partnerships_with_districts_of_foreign_cities Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 13:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

And again, what's your point? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

See City of Adelaide > Explore the City > City Information > Sister Cities for the current list of sister cities of the City of Adelaide. I've just checked some other council websites and apart from the City of Playford > Business Relations with China, the concept of sister cities seems to have largely dropped out of fashion. Bahudhara (talk) 13:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Adelaide Housing

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

A Dutch Colonial style home (built 1967). Adelaide's suburban residential areas are characterised by single and double-storey detached houses.

I suggest that Adelaide's suburban residential areas are characterised by single-storey detached houses; I suggest that double-storey detached houses are still very much in the small minority. What do others think? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I think we should get rid of that photo. Double-storey homes are a rarity in Adelaide, and the 'dutch colonial style', I think, isn't really that prominent either. A photo of the standard one-storey suburban brick home would be a much more accurate inclusion.Jordan85 (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Why? To paint Adelaide's suburbia as a dull architectural wasteland devoid of any interesting variation or remarkability in residential styles? The Dutch Colonial homes may not be prominent but they are certainly unique and thus significant to the city's otherwise overly modern residential landscape. Ashton 29 (talk) 06:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The photo has reappeared. I've deleted it again. I just don't think its a good representation of Adelaide at all, as this style of home and two-storey homes are extremely uncommon in Adelaide. Jordan85 (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

And it's back yet again. I agree that it is not a good representation of Adelaide housing - the article mentions the type but says it is rare so the photo seems undue and I have deleted. Melcous (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox montage problem on mobile Wikipedia

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

For some reason, every time I view this on my phone, the black bar is thicker to the right. The problem disappears on the web. But for those who view this on their phone, it's going to look bad. Any ideas? Ashton 29 (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Adelaide Metropolitan Region

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Soem figures need to be reconciled on this page. The infobox gives metropolitan Adelaide an area of 1,826.9 km2, while the "Geography" section of the article quotes a figure of 870 km2 from the ABS but doesn't cite the information. Which area does the population figure in the infobox correspond to? Is it simply that one number is now outdated? From my understanding, the ABS swtiched from the Australian Standard Geographical Classification (ASGC) to the Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS) between Censuses, so maybe this is the reason for the discrepency? The smaller number looks like it could be the old Statistical District (SD) definition, and the larger number looks like it could be the new Greater Capital City Statistical Area (GCCSA) definition. Or, maybe both the numbers are updated, but the infobox is comparing the GCCSA to an Urban Centre definition in the Geography section. Either way, this needs to be made clear and corrected so we have an apples-to-apples comparison on the page. --Criticalthinker (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Does no one have an explanation for this? This needs to be corrected. --Criticalthinker (talk) 09:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Trouble archiving links on the article

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello. I am finding myself repeatedly archiving links on this page. This usually happens when the archive doesn't recognize the archive to be good.

This could be because the link is either a redirect, or I am unknowingly archiving a dead link. Please check the following links to see if it's redirecting, or in anyway bad, and fix them, if possible.

http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/quickstat/4GADE?opendocument&navpos=220

In any event this will be the only notification in regards to these links, and I will discontinue my attempts to archive these pages.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on Adelaide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Adelaide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Infobox photos

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

An infobox for a city should provide images of its most iconic landmarks.

Currently the inbox for Adelaide has...

Rocks at Glenelg.
Lawns with St Peter's Cathedral in the far distance.

Ideally we should have

A clear photo of Adelaide Oval
A clear photo of St Peter's Cathedral
Rundle Mall
A better photo of Glenelg/Sand beach

Infobox photos should first illustrate what the subject matter is before being an artistic photo.

Glenelg

Adelaide Oval

Rundle Mall

Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so this is a call for folks to get out and take some public domain photos of thes 4 icons then? Donama (talk) 05:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Adelaide tsunami hysteria of 1976

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

If the events described in this morning's article on the predicted Adelaide tsunami

"Adelaide tsunami prediction by clairvoyant John Nash proved wrong, 40 years ago". ABC News. 19 January 2016. Retrieved 20 January 2016.

happened today I imagine we'd end up having a Wikipedia article for it. Any thoughts? Anyone here who was around then and remembers it? I don't think my parents ever mentioned it. I just had some vague idea that there was a flamboyant premier called Dunstan who did some media stunt in pink shorts at the end of one of the jetties! Donama (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Just noticed Don Dunstan#Dunstan decade 20th paragraph in mentions this incident. Donama (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Sadly, I have no first-hand memories of this event, as I'd just left Adelaide a couple of weeks earlier, and didn't return until 8 years later. In 2008-9 I did some work on a report for the Environment Department's Coastal Management Branch on tsunami risk in South Australia (which is low but not implausible) - as it was a difficult job, the report was unfinished and therefore never reviewed or published - so, for WP purposes, that would count as original research. However, in Tsunami: The Underrated Hazard. (Bryant, 2008, pp 305-307, [2nd Ed.]), Ted Bryant of the Holocene Impact Working Group gives a vivid description of the hypothetical effects of a 250m diameter asteroid impact into the Southern Ocean near Antarctica, and the resulting mega-tsunami hitting Adelaide. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Adelaide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120413140920/http://www.adelaide.edu.au/uni/facts to http://www.adelaide.edu.au/uni/facts/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hospitals in Adelaide

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The summary of Adelaide hospitals in the Health section on this page is quite good, but I feel like the other articles on Adelaide's hospitals are a bit of a mess and hard to follow. I've drafted a template to catch them all together at User:Donama/Template:Hospitals in Adelaide in case it can be useful. See also List of hospitals in Australia#South Australia, which does not appear to be correct or complete. Anyone putting up their hand to work on this would be great! Donama (talk) 06:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Glenside/Parkside hospital?

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

It's mere history now, but anyone think we need an article on Glenside Hospital with redirects from Parkside Mental Hospital and Parkside Lunatic Asylum? The Glenside, South Australia article barely mentions it yet in local minds aged 25 and over the word 'Glenside' is synonymous with the now-closed institution. ABC has a history of the institution here (11 May 2011). Donama (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely! I think we need a lot more articles on significant closed institutions like this - I think it's one of our major gaps in city-level coverage. With the building still surviving, it still being the subject of public interest, and the ongoing heritage issues around it, there are a ton of easy sources for it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Started stub at Glenside Hospital (Adelaide) and made Glenside Hospital into a disambig. Donama (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Adelaide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011110633/https://www.f1db.com/f1/page/Adelaide_Street_Circuit to http://www.f1db.com/f1/page/Adelaide_Street_Circuit
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140309190732/https://www.samemory.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=1466 to http://www.samemory.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=1466
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.southaustralia.biz/fact_sheets/fact_automotive.biz.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adelaide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090115022910/http://www.raa.net:80/download.asp?file=documents%5Cdocument_677.pdf to http://www.raa.net/download.asp?file=documents\document_677.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Adelaide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Adelaide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Infobox photos

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What the hell is with our choice of infobox photos. Are we trying to put people to sleep? Why is the shot of our CBD taken from a million miles away. A fountain? Where the hell is Adelaide Oval? Some nice sandy beaches? The wine centre? Worst infobox ever. Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 13:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

User:101.185.81.209 decided to replace the Adelaide Infobox montage with a bland and boring set of pictures. Adelaide deserves a high quality infobox photo.

Sister cities

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

User:MartinSFSA has added Adelaide's sister cities, with the edit comment " →‎Governance: Adding sister cities again ... please give a detailed explanation if removing." I am about to remove them, so my detailed rationale is that the five cities listed are not sister cities of Adelaide, they are sister cities of the City of Adelaide, which is a much smaller entity. Some of the other local government areas in greater Adelaide may also have sister cities (for example City of Elizabeth used to, but I'm not sure if City of Playford has maintained the relationships). --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

In that case, a link would be appropriate. MartinSFSA (talk) 09:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

You linked to City of Adelaide#Sister cities. The list is in the right place there, but wrong here, as there are other sister cities of other LGAs in Adelaide - for example Mobara is sister to City of Salisbury.[2] --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

That's ... actually, that's about as good a compromise as could be. MartinSFSA (talk) 07:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Errors in scope

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article incorrectly defines the capital city of South Australia as "Adelaide" (i.e. the greater metropolitan area) rather than the "City of Adelaide". The capital city is defined by the City of Adelaide Act 1998 [3] as being the City of Adelaide. This only includes the Adelaide City Council area as defined by the legislation and not all the other areas as referenced by this wiki (i.e. it does not include the rest of suburban Adelaide). I think this needs to be changed blah (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Area definition

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Current diff lists the area of Adelaide as 16km^2, which is barely the size of the city centre. Even the City of Adelaide LGA is about 4 times that size. This ref gives an area of Greater Adelaide as 325,766 hectares (3,257.66 km²), however this will make the population density statistic anomalous. Should this article list the area of Greater Adelaide, the Adealide Metropolitan Area, or the City of Adelaide? Or all three? In any case, the uncited area of 16 square kilometres needs to change. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Have looked into this a little more and found the following. The ABS considers Greater Adelaide to include the Adelaide Hills and Mount Barker, while both the SA government and Regional Development Australia exclude those two LGAs. The City of Adelaide (CBD, North Adelaide and parklands) is in fact 15.57 square km (not sure where I got the above mistake from), but I don't think its really relevant for this article, which is about the entire city, rather than just the city centre LGA. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

For consistency all Australian cities use the ABS GCCSA classification for capital city metro areas not state-based classifications. These are the accepted definitions.--StormcrowMithrandir 23:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I've already changed it to the ABS GCCSA figure. Bahudhara (talk) 11:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

image

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Adelaide from the air c1980

Thanks to WMAU I have been digitizing 35mm slides here in Perth taken by EW Digby, I thought you might appreciate this gem Gnan garra 11:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Citations that don't back up any content

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In this edit I removed a citation that didn't mention anything about the content. It was promptly replaced with another link to the same source. This is worthless: if a citation doesn't have the information that's given, don't try to trick people into thinking that it does. 64.203.186.95 (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Link rot easily fixed; it seems the IP user doesn't know how to google. Bahudhara (talk) 08:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Infobox photos outdated and bland

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This has not been rectified for a long period of time now. Despite some excellent Adelaide photographs of notable landmarks we are stuck with a pigeon fountain, non descriptive rocks and a significantly old skyline image. The last time I tried to change this it resulted in an edit war. Are people happy with the boring images? Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 04:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Date established?

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Article states 28 December 1836, but that is the date Hindmarsh came ashore and read the proclamation establishing the Province of South Australia. Adelaide did not exist at that time, and William Light did not even select a site for the new city until March 1837. 1.147.57.171 (talk) 09:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)