This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
some editors seem to want to emphasise the barnett position, some de-emphasize - using a bold sub heading is getting close to the earlier heading which was deleted by an barnett supporter who wished to delete a heading naming the city gatekeepers.
also the article is nominally (and could be with adequate trove sources) about changes from 1880 to current - so the current challenges to the barnett plans are a mere component of a much longer historical process Satu Suro 13:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Section on Riverside Drive was edited to remove unsubstantiated claims that the Drive created a barrier to the river. Morethangrass ( talk) 12:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Perth Waterfront Development#Barnett Government plans 2011 says (with my emphasis in bold here):
Unlike previous development proposals for the Perth foreshore ..., the focus is on the current Esplanade site only.
but the next paragraph says:
Significant changes to adjacent features such as Supreme Court Gardens, Riverside Drive and the Barrack Street Jetty and environs are planned as well.
This appears to be contradictory, no matter how one defines the scope of "the Esplanade". If the Esplanade includes Supreme Court Gardens, Riverside Drive, Barrack St Jetty, then the words "adjacent features" and "as well" do not belong in the 2nd sentence quoted. If the Esplanade does not include them then the second sentence contradicts the first quoted, which says "Esplanade only". Mitch Ames ( talk) 02:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I propose that we should uncapitalise the title of this article, ie that it should be Perth waterfront development. The scope of the article is not just a single development (ie the current one), it is multiple changes, thus the term "waterfront development" is not a proper noun in this context. Hence it should not be capitalised.
Any objections? Mitch Ames ( talk) 02:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps we need to rename the article anyway.
So I suggest that we need to either:
Thoughts, anyone? Mitch Ames ( talk) 03:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
The current 2011/2012 plan now takes over half of the article, and I expect that it is likely to grow as the project proceeds. Should we move the bulk of the text into a separate article eg 2012 Perth Water Development (tentatively capitalised because it is the name of a specific development project, ie a proper noun) with just a brief summary in Perth Waterfront Development#Barnett Government plans 2011 and a {{ main}} link to 2012 Perth Water Development? Mitch Ames ( talk) 02:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I've updated the "Designer" section to reflect what the reference actually says - he is "a lead consultant", not "the main designer". We probably need to rename the Designer section, and/or add more information to it.
Now that we have a name, and with earthworks underway, is it time to split the current development to Elizabeth Quay and rename this this to Perth waterfront development proposals? Moondyne ( talk) 07:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Gnangarra - the previous, 2008, development retained Riverside Drive, as did the 2009 Landgate plan. As there was no diversion, no argument resulted. 'Often' is inaccurate and waffly.
Elizabeth Quay is the new name of the Barnett Govt plan, but my understanding is that the site will still be the Esplanade. This is like Piara Waters, etc, as a development name and the geographic name is not changed. The Elizabeth Quay page should link back to Perth Waterfront page, and should be a section within the Perth Waterfront Development page - "in June 2012, the Premier announced that the development was to be named/known as 'Elizabeth Quay'. A stub (?) is formed for Elizabeth Quay, and any news or developments about it are put under that. Perth Waterfront Development remains as a broader page for discussions about the waterfront/foreshore in general Morethangrass ( talk) 12:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Being myself a Perthite and having read this collection of 'proposals' for the first time, I cringed in embarrassment over its feeble politics. The first rule of WP:BALL is "scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". So how about scrapping the whole article and just proceeding with Elizabeth Quay? There will still be room for valid historical events and for the customary criticisms, maybe even for 'In popular culture' :) Cheers, Bjenks ( talk) 15:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
some editors seem to want to emphasise the barnett position, some de-emphasize - using a bold sub heading is getting close to the earlier heading which was deleted by an barnett supporter who wished to delete a heading naming the city gatekeepers.
also the article is nominally (and could be with adequate trove sources) about changes from 1880 to current - so the current challenges to the barnett plans are a mere component of a much longer historical process Satu Suro 13:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Section on Riverside Drive was edited to remove unsubstantiated claims that the Drive created a barrier to the river. Morethangrass ( talk) 12:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Perth Waterfront Development#Barnett Government plans 2011 says (with my emphasis in bold here):
Unlike previous development proposals for the Perth foreshore ..., the focus is on the current Esplanade site only.
but the next paragraph says:
Significant changes to adjacent features such as Supreme Court Gardens, Riverside Drive and the Barrack Street Jetty and environs are planned as well.
This appears to be contradictory, no matter how one defines the scope of "the Esplanade". If the Esplanade includes Supreme Court Gardens, Riverside Drive, Barrack St Jetty, then the words "adjacent features" and "as well" do not belong in the 2nd sentence quoted. If the Esplanade does not include them then the second sentence contradicts the first quoted, which says "Esplanade only". Mitch Ames ( talk) 02:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I propose that we should uncapitalise the title of this article, ie that it should be Perth waterfront development. The scope of the article is not just a single development (ie the current one), it is multiple changes, thus the term "waterfront development" is not a proper noun in this context. Hence it should not be capitalised.
Any objections? Mitch Ames ( talk) 02:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps we need to rename the article anyway.
So I suggest that we need to either:
Thoughts, anyone? Mitch Ames ( talk) 03:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
The current 2011/2012 plan now takes over half of the article, and I expect that it is likely to grow as the project proceeds. Should we move the bulk of the text into a separate article eg 2012 Perth Water Development (tentatively capitalised because it is the name of a specific development project, ie a proper noun) with just a brief summary in Perth Waterfront Development#Barnett Government plans 2011 and a {{ main}} link to 2012 Perth Water Development? Mitch Ames ( talk) 02:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I've updated the "Designer" section to reflect what the reference actually says - he is "a lead consultant", not "the main designer". We probably need to rename the Designer section, and/or add more information to it.
Now that we have a name, and with earthworks underway, is it time to split the current development to Elizabeth Quay and rename this this to Perth waterfront development proposals? Moondyne ( talk) 07:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Gnangarra - the previous, 2008, development retained Riverside Drive, as did the 2009 Landgate plan. As there was no diversion, no argument resulted. 'Often' is inaccurate and waffly.
Elizabeth Quay is the new name of the Barnett Govt plan, but my understanding is that the site will still be the Esplanade. This is like Piara Waters, etc, as a development name and the geographic name is not changed. The Elizabeth Quay page should link back to Perth Waterfront page, and should be a section within the Perth Waterfront Development page - "in June 2012, the Premier announced that the development was to be named/known as 'Elizabeth Quay'. A stub (?) is formed for Elizabeth Quay, and any news or developments about it are put under that. Perth Waterfront Development remains as a broader page for discussions about the waterfront/foreshore in general Morethangrass ( talk) 12:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Being myself a Perthite and having read this collection of 'proposals' for the first time, I cringed in embarrassment over its feeble politics. The first rule of WP:BALL is "scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". So how about scrapping the whole article and just proceeding with Elizabeth Quay? There will still be room for valid historical events and for the customary criticisms, maybe even for 'In popular culture' :) Cheers, Bjenks ( talk) 15:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)