Talk:Canberra/Archive 1

Why is this Canberra, Australia instead of Canberra? There is only one Canberra so far as I know, all the others are subsiduary ones named after this one - e.g., the English Electric Canberra bomber, or the USS Canberra. I vote we move it back to it's proper title. Tannin 11:24 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)

Why? Australian inferiority complex. I recently moved Fremantle, Australia to Fremantle after searching the USGS geographical database and finding only one. In my experience, UK contributors have no problem squatting even on small town names. We can always disambiguate later, if necessary. -- Tim Starling 11:54 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)

I just looked at the edit history for Canberra. Perhaps if we want to know why it's Canberra, Australia rather than Canberra, we should ask Karen Johnson, since she's the one who moved it here. The edit history is not blank, so if we want to move it back we will need an administrator to clear the way. -- Tim Starling 12:06 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks Tim. I'll pop a note on her user page. Tannin

---

This page will shortly be moved back from Canberra, Australia to Canberra, where it started. Some history will be lost in the process, since I will delete Canberra to make way for the move. Here are the lost edit summaries:

(cur) (last) . . 05:56 Jun 24, 2002 . . Karen Johnson (move to Canberra, Australia)
(cur) (last) . . M 02:43 Feb 26, 2002 . . Graham Chapman (copyedit; small addition)
(cur) (last) . . M 10:20 Feb 24, 2002 . . Conversion script (Automated conversion)
(cur) (last) . . 13:29 Aug 27, 2001 . . 61.9.128.xxx (Initial description of canberra)

Thanks, Tim. By the way, if you haven't noticed, it was suggested on the list that Canberra, Australia needed to be disambiguated because of the "well-known military aircraft called the Canberra". The aircraft, of course, was named after the city, making it a subsiduary name, and is in any case properly titled English Electric Canberra, in line with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft). So, to celebrate the return of "Canberra" to Canbera, I've taken a couple of hours off from my current spate of bird entries, and written up the aluminium one instead. Tannin 12:42 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

---

Can someone confirm "...its biggest inland city..."? I was undder the impression that was Wagga Wagga. PML.

Wagga has a mere 56,700 [1] -- Tim Starling 09:20, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Well put, PM67NZ. I think you've expressed the point nicely. (Ain't it funny how difficult it can be to get little things right sometimes.) Tannin BTW, how big is Albury-Wodonga? I guess that is the 2nd biggest inland city. Tannin 12:07, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I agree, well put. (The lesson I take from this, comparing it with my own effort, is that it's easier to write clearly if you take the time to find out the correct information, instead of trying to write around the bits you don't know and are too lazy to look up.) —Paul A 14:43, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

How many 1928s were there, again?

Suburbs that slowly were built over the next several years included Parkes, Barton, Kingston, Manuka, Braddon and Reid. These suburbs often had other names - for instance, Kingston was originally known as Eastlakes - before a formal renaming procedure took place in the late 1928s. These suburbs were built largely in accordance to Walter Burley Griffin's designs for Canberra. The men who built these suburbs lived in a series of worker's camps, and built buildings from quarries on the North Canberra area.

I guess somone inserted the correct year, without editing the rest of the sentence.

Er, yes, that's quite right. Arno 10:25, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

About the Wagga Wagga query raised some time back: I believe the physical boundaries of the City of Wagga Wagga extend many kilometres beyond the urban area, perhaps 15-20 kms in some directions. So in total area it is probably up there - but in population terms it comes lower down the list.

JackofOz 23:41, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

The City of Shoalhaven is ~160km north-to-south and ~80km east-to-west. However, the number living inj that area is small. I would urge disambiguating by talking about 'population'. Peter Ellis 23:59, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As long as you are not including Tharwa, Hall , Jervis Bay and other ACT but non-Canberra locations in a Canberra population count, I can't see what a problem with a Canberra polulation count may be. Arno 07:58, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Government section

Does anyone here have any opinions about whether it is appropriate for the Canberra#Government section to be here, as apposed to the page for the Australian Capital Territory? Perhaps Canberra/ACT is a special case, but I wouldn't expect to see the NSW government described on the Sydney page, for instance. --Millsdavid 01:39, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The first parragraph of the Canberra Government section explains why it is listed under the Canberra page. The legislative assembly is both the City Council and the Territory Government. An ACT government page should probably also exist, and possibly the content from the Canberra page could be moved there or the ACT government page could redirect to the Government Section of the Canberra page... Martyman 03:17, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Molonglo River, Western End???

The edit of Revision as of 19:54, 23 Oct 2004 by 84.64.52.190 says The Molonglo River flows through Canberra. At it's western end, it has been dammed to form the body of water in the centre of the city called Lake Burley Griffin.

The dam is not in fact at the western end of the river but is in fact at the western end of the lake... Any ideas how to fix this? Martyman 11:54, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How about the western end of what is now designated to be Lake Burley Griffin? Arno 08:17, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

- I suggest I propose 'The Molonglo River was dammed in the 1960 to create Lake Burley Griffin. The Scrivener Dam is located at the western end of the lake. Robert Charles Scrivener, who recommended the site for the National Capital in 1909, laid out the plans for the creation of the lake and dam named after him. Reference: National Capital Authority website You can drop the history and put it elsewhere if you like, but I think the first bit addresses to wording problem. Since Martyman's initial post is quite old and the wording still hasn't been changed, I'll change it after this weekend unless somebody suggests something better. Adz 14:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

changes are fine by me--AYArktos 20:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Not in a section about geography. I've rewritten a very choppy couple of sentences, but there's still room for improvement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skyring (talk • contribs) 14:37, 1 August 2005. (diff)

---

Did the international flights to Fiji scheduled for July 2004 eventuate? The article still talks about this as happening in the future. JackofOz 02:52, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pronunciation

It seems to need a walter burley griffin plan picture, and perhaps more on its design and conception

Should incorrect pronounciations be included? I recently watched a recording of the ceremony in which they announced the name of Australia's new capital, and I quote the crown's representative:

"The city shall be called CAN-brah, with the emphasis on the can."

I think the pronunciations should be removed. Dropping the E is in perfect accord with standard pronunciations of similar words amongst Australians and the British whose accent ours developed from (cf similar cases like primary, where Americans pronounce the A like an E, or words phonetically and semantically similar, like Edinburgh or Greensborough, which in spite of diverse & unintuitive spellings all end in -bra), though admittedly more and more Australians tend to pronounce some similar letters, like the E in battery. Furthermore, I hear it pronounced almost exclusively as CAM-bra, with an M sound (the exceptions being amongst people who pronounce the O in Catholic). In any case, any time more than two pronunciations are listed, it suggests that there is no standard pronuncation and no reason exists to put it down. The absolute most I'd accept is '(rhymes with Edinbrugh or Greensborough)', or something similar (Something more well-known than Greensborough might be better ... I use it as the name of a train line in Melbourne).

With this in mind, I'm removing the pronunciation. 203.82.183.147 12:05, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's been a while since I visted this page, good to see that 3 syllable crap has gone.

Actually, I listened very carefully to see how it was pronounced when I was there, after discovering that my USAian "can-BER-ra" was grossly out of place. I found "CAN-bruh" by far the most common, but also occasionally heard "CAN-bu-ruh" with a very reduced third syllable. I'm tempted to say that the 2-vs-3 syllables is a class distinction, but I probably didn't hear enough speakers to support that. Anyway, it amazes me how many times people have fixed the pronunciation in the article only to have someone come along and change it again. However, I think it does need to be there, for the benefit of my many fellow USAians who don't have the faintest idea how it is actually pronounced by the residents. — B.Bryant 09:12, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"can-BER-ra" - this is mainly the one that I had in mind, no Canberran ever says that, and I suggest it was the major bone of contention.

My private suspicion is that my fellow USAians keep putting that back in. — B.Bryant 16:55, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In point of fact there is no officially correct pronunciation of Canberra. The majority of Australians certainly say "Can-bruh", but a significant minority of better-educated people (me, for example) make some effort to pronounce the e and say "Can-bu-ruh", which is a perfectly legitimate pronunciation. By analogy, the majority of people say "Febry" and "libry," but that doesn't make "February" and "library" incorrect. Adam 08:23, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bobby is correct that the Can-BERR-a pronunciation is commonly used by Americans, and since the great majority of Wikipedia's readers are Americans the article needs to note that that pronunciation is incorrect. Adam 23:37, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, that's just not true. I'm amazed by the number of native-born Australians (at least in NSW) who say "Can-BEAR-uh". Perhaps it's regional, perhaps it's a function of education and/or class; I couldn't tell you. The Americans I know say some variation on "CAN-buh--ruh" and I've only ever heard Australians say "Can-BEAR-uh". If it's incorrect, don't blame it on the yanks. Quill 20:19, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Funny that the New South Welsh get the finger pointed at them, as they'd be the most likely to actually hear us saying it. I always associate this pronunciation with H.G. Nelson, he really makes a point of the BEAR, possibly in character, but probably not.

My (late) grandparents, who lived in Bondi, always said Can-BEAR-uh, but they also said FORE-head not FORR-ud, and WEDDUNZ-day not WENZ-day. It seems to be more confined to earlier generations, and rural people. The pronunciation that the vast majority of Canberrans and other Australians use, in my experience, is not any of the ones discussed in the article at all, but CAM-bruh. The N becomes M because the lips are well on their way to making the B sound. Can you think of any other English language word that has an N followed by a B? I can't. (unbend that inbred gunboat Adam 23:37, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC))

This would probably be described as sloppy pronunciation by some, but it is what most of the citizens actually say. I often do the same, despite trying consciously not to, and I lived there for 27 years until 2002. Cheers JackofOz 22:37, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Someone else mentioned the "CAM-bruh" thing above. Probably along the lines of people who pronounce "September" as "Set-TEM-bur". Staying outta that one! Quill 22:57, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Funnily, there are a couple of other place names with the -erra suffix (maybe more if I thought about it). Jerrabomberra, we say "jeh-ra-bomb-bra" - the same way as Canberra, but Ginninderra strangely gets the -ERR treatment "gin-in-deh-err". So there you go.

Weird Stuff

I was perplexed to find that the soil in Canberra was unsuited to the construction of heavy-duty underground tunnels, according to the article. Huh?

Someone else also seemed to think that geologists were unable to reconstruct the previous vegetation pattern because farmers had cleared the land. Weird. We know what was there previously because there are still a few remnant pockets within Canberra and the rest of the ACT remains unoccupied. What geologists have got to do with it, I don't know.

The "womens breasts" stuff seems to be nonsense. Mount Ainslie and Black Mountain aren't near enough together to justify the description. They are just two out of any number of similar small mountains around the place such as Mount Taylor or Mugga Mugga. Canberry and Canbury (as place names) are found throughout the old British Empire and it is plausible that the local Aboriginal people simply pronounced this as "Kamberra". The earliest records aren't much help, but I'm pretty dubious about the name meaning "meeting place" - apparently "Ottawa" also means "meeting place" in the local tongue though none of the locals ever mentioned this before it was selected as the Canadian capital. Likewise Canberra.

There was no permanent Aboriginal population. It was too cold in winter and the Ngunawal folk moved to more clement areas, something many present day Canberrans try to do as much as possible. But the annual Bogong feast is true enough and to this day the moths return each spring, causing consternation when the new Parliament House was opened and the moths, attracted to the floodlights, found their way into the corridors of power. Pete 02:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So fix the weirdnesses, Pete.

I already did. I was wondering if there was any reason why they were there and came here looking for discussions on tunnels. Pete 06:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One big quibble, though. Sure, there probably wasn't a permanent Aboriginal population. But there weren't "permanent Aboriginal populations" in most of Australia. In most areas, they lived a nomadic lifestyle and moved to where the feeding and the climate was most pleasant (in other words, away from Canberra in winter). So I don't think you can single out Canberra in that respect.--Robert Merkel 04:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article, as written, gave the impression that there was a local population who celebrated the arrival of the Bogongs. In other areas, such as Sydney, there were local Aboriginal residents. They might not have had permanent residences, but they could certainly be found within a relatively small compass at any one time, regardless of season. What is now the ACT was more in the nature of a place to be visited, and in fact the Ngunawal were just one of two or three peoples to include the region as parts of their range. But the impression one might get nowadays, especially if you take the signs along the territory border at face value, is that the Ngunawal people were here in the ACT permanently and they were found nowhere else.

I might check out how well the Bogong-hunting story is covered elsewhere. The moths fly all the way from Queensland, did you know that? They breed amongst the mountains here where they are eaten by birds and lizards and so on and then the survivors fly all the way back. They are quite big moths and presumably well worth the eating, if your tastes run that way. Pete 06:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Urban structure - location of Parl House???

The Article suggests that Griffin intended for Parliament to be located at the lake. A visit to the National Capital Exhibition or to this website about the competition for a national capital, will reveal that he intended for there to be a 'Water Gate' by the lake (where Commonwealth Place is) and for Parliament to be located on Camp Hill, which used to be between where Old and New Parliament Houses now are, but as been smoothed over. Capital Hill was to be the site of a 'Capital', although he wasn't very clear about what exactly this would be. I've deleted the reference to the Parliament being by the lake. Thought I should put this up to explain why. Adz 02:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)