Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Ipswich, Queensland

Multiple Entries

There seems to be two entries: Ipswich, Queensland, and City of Ipswich, Queensland.

Would it be better to reallocate information between them: City of Ipswich to have information pertaining to all Ipswich LGA, while Ipswich, Queesland pertaining to the suburb of Ipswich itself?

Or maybe Ipswich, Queensland and City of Ipswich to be merged into Ipswich, Queensland, and having a separate article called Ipswich (suburb), Queensland —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmcker (talk • contribs) 04:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, there now seems to be three articles referring to what could be called the City of Ipswich, Qld. Ipswich(suburb), Queensland; Ipswich, Queensland; and City of Ipswich. I basically agree but think Ipswich, Queensland should be merged into City of Ipswich, and leave Ipswich(suburb), Queensland as a separate page. Perhaps it's because the Ipswich, Queensland article almost presents itself as a suburb of Brisbane. Ipswich is definately NOT a suburb of Brisbane! The title of 'City of Ipswich' seems more correct and self-assured somehow. When I figure out how to do it, I'll give it a go. Unless someone else has some spare time, haha! Any thoughts? Soozlepip (talk) 02:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What would be best and in line with similar articles (eg. Newcastle, New South Wales) is to keep City of Ipswich for the local government area. The Ipswich, Queensland article should be about the suburb and the wider city. Once Ipswich (suburb), Queensland has been merged it should be re-directed to Ipswich, Queensland. - Shiftchange (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now that makes sense. Given how much information there is, it would be a lot easier that way and like you say, it keeps it in line with what appears to be the standard. I think I will look to other cities to see how they set things out. Unless someone else is doing something? I don't mind having a go, but I'm still feeling my way around, so it won't happen immediately! (And now I know how to reply properly on a talk page...) Soozlepip (talk) 05:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems no-one has started on the Ipswich (suburb), Queensland article, and since that article is mostly duplicated from Ipswich, Queensland, I've started redirecting from the former back into the Ipswich, Queensland article. Sb617 (Talk) 15:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The articles are about separate subjects. City of... is about the LGA, Ipswich is about the connurbation/general location and Ipswich (suburb) is about the CBD/suburb, in line with similar topics elsewhere (all capital cities plus about half a dozen others when I last looked into this). The main issue is defining the connurbation/general location, as the ABS doesn't - it includes it as part of the Brisbane urban centre. Orderinchaos 09:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So this means anything not about the central suburb needs to be excluded as off-topic. Most of the History, Economy, Housing, Sport sections and lists of schools has to be merged into the City of Ipswich article because when Wikipedia is talking about what people commonly consider Ipswich we refer to it as a local government area that is part of the Brisbane metropolitan area that we call Brisbane. We have to ignore any reference that says Springfield is in Ipswich a city in South East Queensland because in accordance with the alignment with ABS principle it is actually in the City of Ipswich which is part of Brisbane. - Shiftchange (talk) 03:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with this approach. Ultimately the difficulties in defining "Ipswich" as a connurbation according to any reliable source suggest that this article should be about the suburb, not the connurbation, which will require a few transfers of content if implemented. (Worth pointing out we infrequently have these sorts of problems elsewhere - Rockingham in WA is a classic example.) Orderinchaos 15:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(od) I see problems. Forgive me if this seems a little disjointed, as I am inlcuding comments as I think of them. Like many Queensland cities and towns (including Brisbane) the name of the CBD suburb is the same as the name of the city/town itself. Ipswich (not the central suburb) is a city, and the central suburb is part of Ipswich, not Brisbane. In South East Queensland, the LGA and the city are almost synonymous. To put it a slightly different way, the city of Ipswich is the central city of the City of Ipswich. A distinction has been made between the suburb, the city and the LGA, but this article is about the city while putting the suburb's info in the info box (e.g. check the population). Regarding the conurbation, Ipswich has not been "absorbed" by Brisbane (neither has Gold Coast, Redlands, Pine Rivers, Redcliffe etcetera ). The cities have all grown together (indeed that I believe is what "conurbation" means). The cities not only have separate LG Authorities, but retain separate CBDs. Brisbane is one city in the conurbation, but the conurbation itself is not Brisbane, but is often called Greater Brisbane. It does not include the whole of the surrounding LGA's but only their contiguous urban areas. "The Greater Brisbane Region" usually includes the non-metro parts of the cities (and somewhere vague it transitions to "South East Queensland"). The ABS is not really the best authority for declaring Ipswich to be part of Brisbane, as they specify for statistical purposes rather than official status, for which one should look to the Queensland Government and the Local Government Authorities themselves. I am reluctant to edit the article myself, but I would ask the the above be considered. LowKey (talk) 11:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted some changes stating that Ipswich is a suburb of Brisbane and has been absorbed by Brisbane. Both are innaccurate. Ipswich is a suburb of Ipswich, and neither are a part of Brisbane. The two cities (actually about 1/2 dozen or so cities) have grown together. See my previous comment above for more on that. LowKey (talk) 02:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isis

The page Isis (disambiguation) says (among other things) that "Isis may refer to: Ipswich, Queensland, a city in Australia", but there's no mention of that in this article. Is this true? Thanks for the help! — Catherine\talk 22:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Images of Ipswich

No images are provided within the article. This is creating a less appealing state toward the article. Please anyone who have images add to the wikipedia commons database and add to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lav90 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of Ipswich

Mostly fine, except for the fact that the wrong century was put in one part; Collingwood Park and Springfield Lakes are less than ten years old. Only an idiot would think that in the 19th century (way back when 8 Mile Plains was still, in fact, plains) that land in Brisbane was fully developed and expensive. So I changed it. Have a look at www.greaterspringfield.com.au and www.qldgroup.com.au/Default.aspx?tabid=81 if you don't believe me.

Reply to History of Ipswich

Even though you didn't sign your post (hmmm I'm thinking only an idiot wouldn't sign their offensive post), I don't know who you are, but I do know that you have to mind your manners. Who do you think you are? Only an idiot you say? Get over yourself please, it was a simple typo. --Orodreth 07:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prominent Locals

Can the cleanup tag for this section need to be removed or does the information in this section need to be of higher quality, better organised, etc? If so what needs to be done?

Distance from Brisane

Not sure if I agree with the statement that Ipswich is located 40Km SW of Brisbane. Brisbane CBD maybe - but the LGAs border each other. I think the statement should be along the lines of "Ipswich is a sattalite city of Brisbane, located 40Km from the CBD" etc. Yes it is its own city but it is widely considered part of the Brisbane metro area - like Paramatta is in Sydney. There is no gap in suburbs between the two. 124.181.135.6 (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the two cities' respective histories "satellite city" is a misdescription. LowKey (talk) 04:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of Ipswich Section

There is misinformation in the history section regarding Queensland Rail.
It even has a reference! "Ipswich was an important river port for the Darling Downs in the 1840s and a regular steamer service from Moreton Bay was established in 1846. This service remained until the railway was extended from Brisbane in 1876 to take out the enormous coal deposits in the region."
Queensland Rail actually began in Ipswich extending west to Grandchester, with the intention of moving Darling Downs products into Ipswich, which were then transported to Brisbane via the Bremer and Brisbane rivers' steamers.
There's a lot more to it of course, and I think there should be a page especially for the Ipswich Railway Workshops, which I haven't found, yet, on WP.
I've only just joined, so I will do my best to correct this according to requirements, and advice is welcome...
Soozlepip (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-written a couple of sentences in the history section, but as I haven't read "Chisholm, Alec H.". The Australian Encyclopaedia. 5. Sydney: Halstead Press. 1963. pp. 100. Ipswich. , I'm not exactly sure what the reference was to; coal or the railway line.
Perhaps whoever put the ref in could put it back if it still applies?
Sorry.
New at this.
I've made a lot of little edits...
Soozlepip (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest "provincial city" in Queensland

What exactly is meant by this uncited phrase/claim ? The oldest regional city ? Inland city ? (Brisbane would be the first of this). I think second oldest city might be more appropriate. --Biatch (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Largest Toxic Dump

How can a toxic dump be the largest in the Southern Hemisphere, but only the second largest in Australia? --Marathone (talk) 11:30, 24 Aug 2012 (UTC)

It can't. I already removed that before seeing this question, but note that the question has gone unanswered for a couple of months. LowKey (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Flood is Absent?

Firing up the machine for an addition. I have noticed that in the History section the most recent major flood event is listed as the 1974 Brisbane Flood but an appeal hosted by Ipswich in England to raise money for flood assistance in Ipswich Qld is linked in External Links. Clearly this is 2 years out of date. Before I just go ahead and shove something into the article to at least mention the event and provide a link - have I missed something? Am I just suffering Domestic Blindness or is there really no mention of the 2011 Flood in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZWM (talk • contribs) 22:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, go ahead, it seems a serious omission. Kerry (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder

I want to remind editors of this article that it is not here to promote the city. A promotional tone has crept in and the addition of trivia muddies the important facts. We only want the facts that will matter in the decades to come written in neutral prose with citations. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ipswich, Queensland/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

There seems to be two entries: Ipswich, Queensland, and City of Ipswich, Queensland.

Would it be better to reallocate information between them: City of Ipswich to have information pertaining to all Ipswich LGA, while Ipswich, Queesland pertaining to the suburb of Ipswich itself.

Or maybe Ipswich, Queensland and City of Ipswich to be merged into Ipswich, Queensland, and having a separate article called Ipswich (suburb), Queensland

Last edited at 00:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 19:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Map

Nice map. Not. Sadsaque (talk) 01:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great contribution. Not. Doctorhawkes (talk) 02:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ipswich, Queensland. 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) 05:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ipswich vs City of Ipswich

Some of the content in this article seems to be confusing Ipswich (the urban area) which is the subject of this article with City of Ipswich (the local government area). This shows up in things like census data. I suggest that Ipswich Inner (SA3) is the best census data to use, not SA4 which is massively larger and doesn't really correspond to any article in Wikipedia. Kerry (talk) 08:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Content dispute regarding city status

A number of recent edits by TravelerFromEuropeanUnion have added maintenance tags or amended the lead paragraph of this article, indicating that the claim that Ipswich (the urban area) cannot be described as a city. These edits appear to arise from similar confusion to that described by Kerry above. I have attempted to clarify on the editor's talk page after reverting the first series of edits which contradicted the article's hat note and made the subject of the article ambiguous, while StellaAquila removed the inappropriate tags. I encouraged them to discuss their concerns here prior to making further changes, but they feel doing so will result in a conversation that is biased towards an "Australian point of view" and that the claim Ipswich is a distinct regional city is WP:OR and lacks WP:NPOV. They have again placed verification tags on claims that are supported by in-line references as well as the Queensland Place Names register [1]. In my opinion, this borders on disruptive editing. However, assuming good faith, I am aware there may be a language barrier and that the definitions of what is a "city" in Australia may be quite different from Europe. I have once again removed these tags and cleaned up the lead, but I would welcome further discussion to reach a clear consensus on this issue. Dfadden (talk) 11:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for beginning this discussion, Dfadden. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion and I have been engaged in similar disputes on a number of other pages, including City of Ipswich (where I also started a discussion on the talk page), Scenic Rim Region, Somerset Region, and Lockyer Valley Region. I edited those pages simply to improve the wording of the lead sections (which did not conform to the grammatical standards of Australian English), to add citations, and to fix what I believed to be misleading information, such as those LGAs being part of Brisbane, rather than Greater Brisbane (which is considered a metropolitan area/region by a number of official sources). As I stated on the City of Ipswich talk page, I am happy to hear alternative views, and especially from the user in question. However, I do not believe that my edits contravened WP:OR or WP:NPOV. I undid the reversions to the aforementioned pages once, but have refrained from doing so again for fear of starting an edit war. StellaAquila (talk) 11:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification (due to poor wording on my part): I do not believe that the Scenic Rim, Somerset or Lockyer Valley regions should be considered as being part of Brisbane OR Greater Brisbane. Perhaps it could be specified that these regions lie just outside of the Greater Brisbane region, or that they simply form part of the larger South East Queensland region, which I believe was originally the case. StellaAquila (talk) 11:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the place to establish consensus on this article. I agree that Scenic Rim, Somerset, and Lockyer Valley are not part of Brisbane, and share the concerns raised about TFEU's edits mentioned. The Queensland Government has the authority to name places in Queensland and the Queensland Place Names database is where they document their place names, so it is a reliable source. However, one problem we have with the QPN is that it is a regularly updated website and does not always retain its history. As part of the Australia-wide move away from using towns for addressing (which are defined by their centrepoint but not precisely bounded) to suburb/localities which are precisely bounded, the QPN replaced the feature types of "city", "town", "township" etc with the more generic "population centre". Historically, when a town reached a certain population (and perhaps other criteria), it obtained city status. And Ipswich was Queensland's second city (see [2] which is a reliable source, a project of the University of Queensland funded by the Queensland Government. I found the proclamation of Ipswich obtaining city status in December 1904 (see [3]). We no longer give city status to towns, so the places in Queensland that are referred to as cities are generally those which obtained that status in earlier times. I don't think it is unreasonable to describe such places as cities in Wikipedia, but of course we should make an effort to cite that status. Generally we know which towns achieved city status because it is reflected in their municipality name, some of which are retained as current local government names, e.g. City of Ipswich, City of Gold Coast, while some of the other cities when amalgamated in 2008 lost the word City in their LGA name, e.g. City of Toowoomba is now within the larger Toowoomba Region but Toowoomba itself is still a city. The list of the places which had city status but it's no longer reflected in their LGA name can be seen in Template:Queensland former LGAs in the first group labelled "Cities", e.g. Bundaberg, etc. Kerry (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kerry Raymond: and other, you forgot about a few important issues:

  1. I realize that the issue of places in Australia is complicated, even ridiculous. Ipswich is not a city within City of Ipswich and the Brisbane (which is generally treated as a city in the world). A city within a city and within a city/metropolis? It does not make sense. It's possible that people in Australia use the word of "city" interchangeably for everything (cities, villages, agglomerations, urbna areas, metropolitan areas etc etc) but this is the international Wikipedia, not an Australian Wikipedia. The rules are different here than in Australia. What is important here are reliable sources saying that locality Ipswich (not City of Ipswich) currently has city rights, city council and is currently has a city status. Sorry, I don't make the rules. I insert fact templates into controversial content. A city within a city and within a city/metropolis sounds ridiculous, while suburb in Ipswich City within city/metropolis sounds more rational.
  2. The key issue is that the city (Ipswich which received city rights in 1904) was an administrative unit. "Population centre" of Ipswich i.e. Ipswich, Queensland is not the heir of the city because it is only an area with urban buildings and nothing more. The heirs of the city with city rights are City of Ipswich. The City of Ipswich is this city. Ipswich, Queensland is just central part of the City of Ipswich, this is just "population centre". The encyclopedia is a serious source of information, not an Australian regional newspaper with common names of places. Ipswich, Queensland is not a city, according to the common sense and any standards. City of Ipswich works like city (with administrative boundaries, with mayor, with city coucil), according to the common sense and any standards - this is a city. Even name say this. I understand the problem with Australian place names. However, in this case, the population center cannot be called a city because that city is City of Ipswich.
  3. We can talk about a compromise. There is a source that says Ipswich, Queensland is a suburb[4][5]. If any of the users are bothered by the name "suburb", we can reach a consensus for other terms (of course other than "city"). We can use the neutral term of "population centre" like:
    "Ipswich is a population centre within City of Ipswich in South East Queensland, Australia".
     That's not a problem.

Regardless of whether will be a consensus to change the intro to "suburb" or "city" or "population centre", there must be credible sources of information for the content per Wikipedia:Verifiability. The StellaAquila / Dfadden's version is a forgery, because the user inserted two sources into the content, but these sources do not say anything about it[6][7]. The administrator should look into this matter because in this article it is already a recidivism. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that my edits and conduct in this matter represent anything other than good faith (WP:AGF is a pillar of wikipedia), then you need to raise the matter on the administrator's noticeboard. If you do not wish to do so, strike your uncivil WP:Aspersions or I will pursue the matter with admins myself, as you are the one who is out of line and disregarding attempts to resolve the dispute via consensus. Dfadden (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is ongoing and there is no consensus yet. Two key substantive issues are still not clarified, so what consensus are you even talking about? Secondly, no future discussion or consensus is no possibility to agree to falsifying sources. There is a thread created in ANI, maybe the administrators will say something more. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"There is no consensus yet"? I think there is consensus because I don't see support for your point of view. As I appreciate that you may not be a native English speaker, there is a difference between consensus and unanimity. Nor do I not think your description of Australian opinions as "stupid" or "disconnected from reality" is a helpful contribution to a consensus discussion; indeed, it would appear to be in violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I note your recent repeated edit to describe the topic of this article as a suburb is incorrect as the hatnote at the top of this article shows there is another article about the suburb of Ipswich (the central suburb of the city of Ipswich, the topic of this article) within the larger City of Ipswich (a local government area with one city Ipswich and a number of much smaller towns and lots of rural localities). The QPN citation for the suburb of Ipswich refers to the place described in that suburb article, not the city described in this article. There are three different-sized pieces of the surface of the Earth called Ipswich here in Queensland which are nested within one another like Russian dolls. I agree that our government could have come up with a less confusing name for the new local government area. Indeed, most of the other cities which had similar amalgamations as part of the same process had the new local government area named XYZ Region rather than City of XYZ, and I assume if the new expanded local govenment area surrounding Ipswich had been named Ipswich Region rather than retaining the name City of Ipswich, we wouldn't need to have this conversation at all. That might have been a more sensible naming, but it isn't how they they named it. That's the reality of the situation, even if it seems "ridiculous" to you. I note that this article has described Ipswich as a city since 2004 and 20 years later with over 1500 subsequent edits by over 600 distinct accounts, its city status doesn't seem to have been raised as an issue before. Wikipedia's article on city starts by observing "A city is a human settlement of a notable size. The term "city" has different meanings around the world ...", so the suggestion you make that there is some international definition that Australian cities must abide by appears to be contradicted by that. And in any case, the subject of this article would appear to meet most of criteria mentioned in that article in terms of population etc. I hope this explanation clarifies the distinction between the three places named Ipswich here in Queensland and we can all move on to more productive editing. Kerry (talk) 08:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clear up any remaining doubts about the categorisation of Ipswich as a city, distinct from the surrounding Local Government Area and suburb of the same name:
  • [8] - Abstract refers to Ipswich as a "Regional Australian city"
  • [9] - see abstract. Classifies Ipswich as a "peri-urban city" within South East Queensland, distinct from Brisbane.
  • [10] Full text open access - Ipswich Queensland is rapidly-growing city about 40 kilometres from Brisbane on the Bremer River' (see abstract). Article describes the development, urban character and infrastructure of both the Ipswich Central Business District and surrounding suburbs. It distinguishes between urban Ipswich (which is the subject of this article) and the Ipswich CBD, corresponding to Ipswich (suburb), Queensland.
I hope it is now clear that there has been no falsification of information here. Dfadden (talk) 08:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While TFEU really should WP:AGF more, I do think there is a point there. In the above three links, I can't see (due to full-text paywalls in the first two, and a 404 error on the third) anything which distinguishes what the abstracts talk about from the City of Ipswich as opposed to the article subject. Hopefully the full-text clarifies, in which case we should insert it into the article as a citation. The current citation (#3), however, appears to be very much referring to the City of Ipswich; if you click around https://www.ipswich.qld.gov.au/ to About Ipswich -> Statistics and Facts, you'll see the population figure (251,148 (ABS ERP 2023)) is far too high to match this article (115,913 (2021)), but is plausible with the population in the City of Ipswich article (229,208 (2021 census)). So that citation does appear to be in error.
I'm new to the topic of Australian geography, so I very well may be misunderstanding how things work. That said, it seems to me that if we can't tell whether an WP:RS is referring to the City of Ipswich or Ipswich, Queensland, it's dubious to use it. Since paywalls seem to be an issue, if someone has a good source, which clearly refers to Ipswich, Queensland and not City of Ipswich, could they quote the relevant parts here as well as providing the citation? That might help clear up my (and others') confusion. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EducatedRedneck please try this alternative link to access the full text article [11] Dfadden (talk) 12:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dfadden That link works! And good find; thank you for taking the time to help me read it. Now I'm more confused, however. The article refers to the Ipswich CBD, which I assume means Ipswich Central Business District. It also refers to North Ipswich as a separate entity. This seems to imply the article is talking about Central Ipswich, not Ipswich, Queensland. (In which case, this would be a good citation for the sentence, The suburb of the same name serves as the city’s central business district in the lede.) Am I missing something?
Either way, I think we got a reference for one of the two "failed verification" tags. Either this article refers to Ipswich, Queensland as a city (and we can change the cite on the first tag) or else it refers to Central Ipswich, in which case it's the CBD and we can change the cite and resolve the second tag. Thank you, Dfadden, for helping me access the source; we're making progress, I think! EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. EducatedRedneck, you said: if we can't tell whether an WP:RS is referring to the City of Ipswich or Ipswich, Queensland, it's dubious to use it. Yes, here's the problem. There are no sources that specifically mention Ipswich, Queensland, in almost every case it concerns City of Ipswich and in most cases there is always doubt as to which version of Ipswich the source refers to. Sources must not only be reliable, but also 100% verifiable - i.e. anyone can check the source and anyone must see that the source concerns Ipswich, Queensland and and have no doubt about it. That's why I ask: why do some users try to force the names "city" or "regional city" if they do not have clear sources and that these terms are very controversial and controversial. Wikipedia should avoid controversial and contentious terms. I inserted the word "suburb" + source + quote into the article, but I am willing to compromise. If more people want to use the neutral term, for example "population centre" (or "populated place" or "locality") and removing the "suburb" and disputed and unsourced "city" - I will agree with this for a compromise. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @EducatedRedneck, hopefully we can continue to make progress! You are correct - CBD is "Central Business District".
I think the cause of much of the confusion here might surround how Local government in Australia is organised. Whereas in countries like the United States there might be several tiers of local government (eg. cities, municipalities, counties), Australia has moved towards a single tier of local government through mergers and amalgamations of towns, cities and shires to form larger sub-regional entities. It appears that in 1995, Ipswich City and the former Moreton Shire were merged to form a larger political and administrative subdivision. This new Local Government Area became known as the City of Ipswich, which I understand may be a little bit misleading. As a result of this merger, the City of Ipswich contains within its boundaries the developed area (city) of Ipswich that includes the CBD and surrounding suburbs, which has an urban character and is the subject of this article, as well as several smaller towns, villages and rural areas within its hinterland. Towns such as Grandchester, Queensland and Rosewood, Queensland are 20 and 34 km from the central business district, beyond the urban sprawl that most would recognise as the "city" and have a distinctly more rural character.
This source [12] suppports my claims above, with relevant quotes highlighted below:
  • Ipswich, Queensland's oldest provincial city with a suburban and rural hinterland is 30 km south-west of central Brisbane, at the junction of the Brisbane, Lockyer and Fassifern valleys.
  • The immediate postwar period saw an expansion of the Ipswich municipal area, with the addition of territory from Bundamba to Goodna to the east. When the Ipswich municipality was proclaimed in 1860 its area was a compact 10 sq km. In 1917 a number of surrounding shires were abolished and parts of Brassall, Bundamba and Purga Shires added to create a "greater Ipswich" of 32 sq km (the balance of those shires were incorporated into Moreton Shire.) The 1949 expansion and the addition of most of Moreton Shire to Ipswich City in 1995 resulted in a metropolitan municipality of 1207 sq km, of which the central Ipswich city area was a small core.
  • Central Ipswich has a generous array of parklands, and there are botanically interesting parks at Rosewood, Bundamba and Kholo... Inner Ipswich has retained an unusual density of small suburbs, in contrast to inner suburban Brisbane where some small places have almost disappeared as place names or barely remain as distant memories...In addition to the numerous inner suburbs of Ipswich, the municipal boundaries also include rural towns such as Grandchester, Rosewood, Marburg and Purga. In 2008 two of Ipswich City's southern rural towns, Harrisville and Peak Crossing, were detached and placed with the Scenic Rim Regional Council. Ipswich City's area was reduced from 1207 sq km to 1089 sq km.
There is an excellent map in this source [13], see figure 1.1 (localities). Might be more helpful to see the distinctions visually. Dfadden (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might also be helpful to look an article for another LGA where the names are more distinct - see City of Shoalhaven in New South Wales, that has urban areas surrounding the city of Nowra (the council seat of the local government area, and Ulladulla, with an expansive (55km) stretch of native forest between them. A city (urban area) within a city (LGA) is common in Australia. Dfadden (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, you did a great job. Your long comment describes many things about... City of Ipswich. From the above-mentioned quotes, it seems that it is about City of Ipswich. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, thank you for your detailed response! I think my US-based background has me at a disadvantage here, so I apologize if I miss the point. You're quite right that this is pretty confusing. I think your explanation has made sense; you can tell me if I understand, or if I only thought I did! For the sake of brevity, I'm going to abbreviate Ipswich Central to IC, Ipswich, Queensland to IQ, and City of Ipswich to CoI.
One stumbling block I hit was in your first quote Ipswich, Queensland's oldest provincial city with a suburban and rural hinterland is 30 km south-west of central Brisbane, at the junction of the Brisbane, Lockyer and Fassifern valleys. I obviously don't know the valleys, but this article claims IQ is 42.7 km SW of Brisbane CBD. However, I checked Google Maps, and the distance from Brisbane CBD to IC is almost exactly 30 km, which matches your source perfectly. The distance to the edge of CoI is only 19 km, and to the centroid of CoI is 40 km. Unless we're going to argue that the center of CoI is coterminous with IQ, this seems to only be referring to IQ. I view this as an acceptable source to claim IQ is a city. (I don't like that it's a .com, but I don't have a better one, or any source that says otherwise, so I say we use it.)
I don't think the other two quotes refer to IQ. It may not batter because I think the source still works (see above paragraph) but if curious, you can see my thinking/confusion below.
Analysis of the other two quotations
The second quote notes The 1949 expansion and the addition of most of Moreton Shire to Ipswich City in 1995 resulted in a metropolitan municipality of 1207 sq km, of which the central Ipswich city area was a small core. This seems to be talking about CoI (the areas match, but are too large for IQ), but I'm not clear on whether the central Ipswich city area refers to IQ or IC. I'm guessing IC.
The third quote says, In 2008 two of Ipswich City's southern rural towns, Harrisville and Peak Crossing, were detached and placed with the Scenic Rim Regional Council. Ipswich City's area was reduced from 1207 sq km to 1089 sq km. Both of those towns are well outside of IC, so I think this quote is referring again to CoI.
Unrelated: I find it so odd how Google puts part of the City of Ipswich as being part of Brisbane, but not all of it. This goes to show that my brain needs to adjust if I'm to be productive in this area! Even having been told that it's a one-tier organizational system, my Americanized brain keeps trying to categorize based on hierarchy. I'll get better!
In any case, I think both the disputed passages now have citations. The first one referring to it as a city can be solved with this website which Dfadden provided. The claim that IC is the CBD of IQ can be sourced to this paper, also found by Dfadden. I don't think the phrasing needs to be changed; I like that the lede acknowledges that IQ can be referred to differently, and the passage on IC being the CBD seems straightforward now that it's sourced. Finally, I'd also like to correct the location value in the infobox, (change from 42 km to 30 km) and source it to the queenslandplaces.com.au source. What do y'all think? And if I've misunderstood, I'd really appreciate your help in explaining it to me.
More progress, indeed; hopefully I understood everything correctly and we can add the sources and conclude the issue. I'm grateful for the help! EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EducatedRedneck, your argument about distance in km (regarding quote no. 1) cannot be any evidence for Dfadden's version. The City of Ipswich is not an exact circle, it has an irregular shape and the center is considered to be the center of the main urban complex (often - historic center) in the commune. Ipswich population centre or "populated place" or "locality" (on en.Wikipedia with name of Ipswich, Queensland) is a historic centre and downtown of City of Ipswich. Downtown often contains the CBD i.e. office buildings, this is normal. In other words: to determine the distance to the business center of Brisbane, the Ipswich, Queensland - center of the City of Ipswich commune may be used or no. Sometimes the center lies a few kilometers, e.g. west of the mathematical center of the commune. See for yourself, take any three cities in the world and you will see that distances are measured from the city center, which is often not located centrally in the center of the commune. So the argument of converting kilometers is meaningless, because there are four different methods of calculating distances: 1) base point on the mathematical center of the municipality 2) base point on the city center 3) base point on the mathematical center of the municipality in distance by road 4) base point on the city center in distance by road). First quote proved nothing, there is no evidences that this refers only and exclusively to central Ipswich and there is no evidences that this refers do not concern City of Ipswich.
Dfadden, as for your second and third quotes - I also wrote it above: these clearly refer to City of Ipswich. I see, EducatedRedneck has a similar opinion, quote: I don't think the other two quotes refer to IQ. It may not batter because I think the source still works (see above paragraph) but if curious, you can see my thinking/confusion below. Finally, can be assumed that these are three quotes that refer to City of Ipswich. Does it even make sense to post in discuss page sources like the ones above? The sources must clearly indicate (without raising any doubts) that it is only and exclusively about Ipswich population center (regarding article name Ipswich, Queensland). TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 00:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again @EducatedRedneck. My understanding is that historically, distances have been measured by road between a defined point in the CBD of each town/city (I am happy to be corrected on this if someone can provide a contradictory source). That may explain why we have differing distances quoted as this is something that can change over time especially with improvements to the road network? I'm not sure if there is a MOS article that describes a standardised way to measure distances between two locations on wikipedia?
I included a quote to supports my explanation of council amalgamations, including the 1995 merger (the second of my dot points) and political/ administrative boundaries that shift over time while the city remains constant. The third point was included to demonstrate that the planning, development and land use patterns of CoI are not restricted to just the urban area of IQ, but contain a sub-regional area including towns that have not historically been considered as part of IQ. If you are from the US, it might help to view CoI as the County of Ipswich, IQ as the Ipswich metro area and IC (or in Australian terms, CBD/suburb of Ipswich) as the downtown area. I appreciate there are differences, but I'm offering an approximation only to help explain how the hierarchy works.
I acknowledge your comments, and those of TFEU that the sources also refer to the City of Ipswich. As the City of Ipswich is the political and administrative authority that IQ (and IC) sit within, there is indeed some overlap. If it helps, at the 2021 Census, the Australian Bureau of Statistics provide separate demographic information for Ipswich (Local Government Area) - being CoI [14] with a population of 229,208 and Ipswich Inner (Statistical Area Level 3) [15] corresponding to IQ, with a population of 115,913. I also acknowledge the limitation with this model is that there are also some suburbs in the east of the urban area counted in a separate Statistical Area Level 3 - Springfield - Redbank [16]. I can only make an educated guess that this is because having more localised demographic data is useful to authorities as the Springfield - Redbank area is experiencing rapid urban infill development. There would be different planning considerations to account for this growth. Once again, I am happy to be corrected if someone has a source that proves otherwise. Dfadden (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are satisfied that the refs i have provided are sufficient to remove the maintenance tags, can I ask an editor who is not involved in the ANI to add them to the article and make these edits? Under the circumstances it is best if i avoid inflaming the situation. Dfadden (talk) 02:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a misunderstanding here. You say: If you are satisfied that the refs i have provided are sufficient to remove the maintenance tags? The sources must clearly indicate (without raising any doubts) that it is only and exclusively about Ipswich population center (regarding article name Ipswich, Queensland). Your sources have proven absolutely nothing. There is still no source that openly and verifiably recognizes Ipswich, Queensland as a city. Practically the sources you provided show that City of Ipswich is a city, but everyone probably noticed that already, so it's nothing new. EducatedRedneck or any other editor would not even have the right to remove the [failed verification]'s template from the article. so I'm surprised that you're even writing about such an idea. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 02:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dfadden I see. Thank you again for the thorough explanations! Moving back to the topic of "is IQ a city", to make sure I understand correctly, what I'm hearing is that the sources you provided demonstrate the overlap, but you don't posit that they are a source referring to IQ as a city. Am I understanding that right? I could've sworn you were saying it was an "IQ is a city" source, but heck, I've been wrong before.
@TravelerFromEuropeanUnion Do you also object to characterizing Ipswich, Queensland (IQ) as a suburb? I ask because the source we have seems to be talking about Ipswich Central (IC), the CBD of Ipswich, but not the urban area of IQ. Look at the map it has; that matches the CBD exactly.
To both: do we have any sources about IQ which define it beyond being a "Level 3 Statistical Area"? Perhaps that's the way forward. Ignore classifying it as a suburb or a city, and just say it's a densely populated statistical area or something. Heck, that might help clarify for ignorant readers like me what it's actually discussing. What do y'all think? If it's a bad idea, feel free to say so; I'm aware that I'm very much still learning here! EducatedRedneck (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EducatedRedneck, I have no objection to removing the term "suburb" from the article. I agree to use another term (without "suburb" and "city"/"regional city") like statistical area or similar. Regardless, I think these terms are better and completely neutral: "population centre" or "populated place" or "locality". TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 02:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A small correction. Where you say I ask because the source we have seems to be talking about Ipswich Central (IC), the CBD of Ipswich, but not the urban area of IQ. Look at the map it has; that matches the CBD exactly., which map are you referring to? I would consider that this map [17] aligns with separate suburb article and matches the CBD/IC exactly. The SA3 [18] covers a much larger urban area consisting of the CBD/IC and surrounding suburbs. When you compare these maps with the figure 1.1 here [19], you can see how the developed areas (understood to be IQ) fit within approximately one third of the Local Government Area (CoI). Large areas of rural and conservation land west of the urban area now within (CoI)'s political jurisdiction. This includes a number of smaller towns that once had their own Local Government Areas and were not considered part of the City of Ipswich prior to 1995 and still retain separate civic identities, different postal codes etc. This is why it is important to distinguish IQ from CoI.
Between the two sources provided, I believe they shows there is indeed a clear distinction between Ipswich as an urban city and the sub-regional administrative division known as the City of Ipswich. Thus, I agree with your original assessment Unless we're going to argue that the center of CoI is coterminous with IQ, this seems to only be referring to IQ. I view this as an acceptable source to claim IQ is a city. (I don't like that it's a .com, but I don't have a better one, or any source that says otherwise, so I say we use it.)
I am aware that this all probably makes a lot more sense to Australians who have lived in these places during the process of mergers and amalgamations - that somebody who lives in an inner suburb like Raceview or North Ipswich would strongly identify as residing in Ipswich, while somebody from an outlying rural hamlet like Warrill View would more strongly identify as a resident of their village. Earlier in the conversation, @Kerry Raymond made the point that Wikipedia's article on city starts by observing "A city is a human settlement of a notable size. The term "city" has different meanings around the world...". This article has described IQ as a city for some 20 years now. It is likely that the LGA boundaries will again change over the next 20 years, but one thing will remain consistent - that it is centred on a "city" called Ipswich, even if its defined borders differ administratively and colloquially. Dfadden (talk) 03:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With that said, in the interest of compromise, if the word "city" is so contentious despite its common and historical usage, i would welcome any thoughts on a lede along the lines of Ipswich is the main urban centre within the City of Ipswich and is the council seat of the Local Government Area. Dfadden (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few more refs that support the claim that IQ is a defined city/urban centre (I use the term interchangeably) that sits within the larger City of Ipswich:
  • [20] - see section on Land Use: The City of Ipswich is a rapidly growing residential area, with substantial rural, rural-residential, commercial and industrial areas. The City of Ipswich encompasses a total land area of about 1,100 square kilometres. The main urban centre is Ipswich, with developing residential areas in the east, and numerous small townships including Grandchester, Marburg, Rosewood and Walloon. (I know it's a .com source, but appears credible and verifiable by the below).
  • [21] - A 2009 map showing the developed areas and urban footprint of the Ipswich urban area. This is a considerably smaller footprint than the City of Ipswich Local Government Area. Dfadden (talk) 06:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I regret to inform you that your above comment resembles OR. You use some of your own map analysis, your own interpretation of the content and maps to fit your version of the article. You forget that sources are supposed to be fully verifiable by everyone (and not just by people who read your explanations based on your interpretation of the map). The second issue is that you explain your opinions in this way, which de facto are not an argument at all. The fact that the City of Ipswich has areas consisting of the historic center, i.e. Ipswich and Springfield etc. absolutely does not change the fact that the City of Ipswich is a city. Every city in the world has changed its administrative boundaries, additional areas have been incorporated into each city - often places that had a different identity of residents. This is a natural process and applies to every metropolis in the world. This is the crux of the matter. You are trying to give us your opinions but they do not prove the existence of the "city" of Ipswich (a city other than the "City of Ipswich"). This whole discussion here is about the recognition of the city of Ipswich (not to be confused with the City of Ipswich). This discussion is not about Ipswich city center having a different history to the rest of the City of Ipswich etc. because that is irrelevant here. The fact that the City of Ipswich has new administrative boundaries since 1995 does not in any way create Ipswich city center as a city. We do not need knowledge of the history of Ipswich here, we are not here to create a new reality based on your sources describing the history, maps or identity of the inhabitants because this is Wikipedia:Synthesis. We only need reliable and fully verifiable by everyone sources that clearly show that Ipswich has a city status (not to be confused with the City of Ipswich, which sources indicate is a city). That's all we need. We don't need your analyses here. Your analyses, your interpretations, youur Synthesis are not proof of the existence of the city of Ipswich.
Your source proves that Ipswich is just urban centre within City of Ipswich. I quote: The main urban centre is Ipswich, with developing residential areas in the east (...). Your sources even show something different than your version of the article. You are trying to overinterpret it, and the above source explains the matter clearly. Your above source allows only one thing: inserting the term "urban center" into the Ipswich, Queensland. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read WP:SYNTH#SYNTH is not directly applicable to talk pages. Dfadden (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I understand - I didn't accuse anyone of using WP:SYNTH in the article. I only pointed out that you provided a source that in order to recognize IQ as a "city" you need to do a thorough analysis of the content i maps, which is unacceptable. The source is supposed to indisputably and unquestionably show IQ as a city. It can't be like that, to find out what the article is about - whether it's IQ or the City of Ipfish, we need to make a synthesis of variuos maps and various content. It is not up to us - the editors - to state whether IQ is a city, the source must state it unambiguously. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to argue semantics, go read the Collins English dictionary defines "urban centre" as an urban area that is large and heavily populated[22] and "city" as A city is a large town [23] and tell me those aren't mutually exclusive? In any case, the wikipedia entry city simply says it refers to a human settlement of notable size.

The detailed analysis of the sources I provided was for @Educated Redneck because they asked for help in understanding the nuances of Australian geography. They have already agreed that I have provided satisfactory evidence to remove the contested maintenance tags. However, for the benefit of TFEU, please refer to the Queensland Place Names register, as I did at the very beginning of this discussion [24]. This register contains an entry showing that there is a place called Ipswich that is a population centre within the City of Ipswich Local Government Area. The population centre has a separate listing to the suburb of Ipswich (which was defined in 1991) and both exist as separate named places within a Local Government Area. (Do I need to get a dictionary out to show that population centre and urban centre are synonymous in this context?)

I understand it becomes confusing when administrative regions are also called City of (Place). As I have demonstrated, these divisions while called a city are similar to a County in the United States as they may contain several towns, cities, villages and populated places with their own cultural identity, function as hubs for their own regional catchments, and service provision. Cultural boundaries and definitions are not always as easy to understand as administrative boundaries without immersion or first hand experience of living there. Dfadden (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dfadden, you say: If you really want to argue semantics, go read the Collins English dictionary defines "urban centre" as an urban area that is large and heavily populated[22] and "city" as A city is a large town [23] and tell me those aren't mutually exclusive? - this is not about exclusion. The terms "city" and "urban center" are not synonyms. If the source writes about "urban centre", you cannot write "city" in the article because these terms are not synonyms. They are similar in terms of functionality but they are not the same, and cannot be used interchangeably. Dfadden, you say: The detailed analysis of the sources I provided was for @Educated Redneck because they asked for help in understanding the nuances of Australian geography. They have already agreed that I have provided satisfactory evidence to remove the contested maintenance tags - no, not really. The discussion is still ongoing, there are still new arguments. The user initially relied on a theory of distance calculation (in km), however this theory was deemed insufficient to be accepted as evidence because there are four different methods of calculating distance. I, too, have changed my opinion about "statistical area" as a result of new arguments. You cannot write that someone has already made a permanent decision if the discussion is still ongoing and new arguments appear. Final opinions will be written at the end of the discussion. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're all looking at the same thing, which is good. @Dfadden, you wrote, which map are you referring to? I would consider that this map [17] aligns with separate suburb article and matches the CBD/IC exactly. I think we are very much on the same page here. I was referring to the map shown in source 2 in the article which sources calling IQ a "suburb". My intent was to point out that this source also fails verification for, as you pointed out, it matches IC exactly, but doesn't match IQ. (The map I'm comparing IQ to is this one used by the 2021 census.)
Unfortunately, I'm not sure we can use the term "city" and "urban area" interchangeably in the context of the article. Frankly, I doubt there are many who wouldn't refer to IQ as a city, but unless a reliable source does, our hands are tied, particularly as it has been challenged. Even calling it "urban area" seems odd, as the sources are inconsistent; this map provided by Dfadden depicts a different area than the one used in the 2021 census.
Maybe we need to go back even further. Leaving aside what to call it... what is IQ? What defines its boundaries and charactaristics? Or, if there are no definite boundaries, what's our working definition? I'm getting the feeling (apologies if I'm barking up the wrong tree) that there's no jurisdictional boundary because IQ doesn't have a government. (CoI does, and parts of IQ do, but there's no one single government that administers all of IQ and only IQ.) The only well-defined definition I saw was the census statistical area, but I could very easily be missing something.
Would y'all think it'd be worth starting a new talk page section discussing how IQ is defined? TFEU seems to define IQ as an arbitrary geography that happens to have people in it, in which case, agreed, that's not a city, it has no governance specific to it, and no sources call it a city because they refer to one of the well-defined entities (IC, CoI) rather than IQ. I'm still working on Dfadden's definition of IQ, but I'm guessing it's rooted in where the historical Ipswich grew and became the CoI, in which case yes, IQ would be a city because it was one before expanding and never stopped being one. (Apologies if I've misunderstood your stance, Dfadden, and corrections are welcome.) Do y'all think it'd be useful to have a separate discussion to make sure we're on the same page on what IQ is? Sadly, my usual method of checking wikipedia for help doesn't work this time! EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EducatedRedneck, thank you for your common sense in this discussion. In the course of the discussion - although I initially accepted the "statistical area" option, I now disagree with it because it covers a different area than IQ. Currently I still support the options: "population centre" or "populated place" or "locality", because they are fully neutral terms and do not attack the Dfadden's version in any way. These neutral terms do not exclude anything, so they are the perfect compromise. At this moment, a new option has emerged in the discussion, which is supported by a source - "urban centre". So I also support the "urban centre" option. If you want to do a thorough analysis of sources - I don't see a problem, but more than one person should be responsible for finding sources. We can't pass the whole responsibility for research to Dfadden. Due to lack of sufficient time, I will not engage in searching for new sources. Of course, when they are presented in the discussion, I will write my own opinion, but I will not engage in searching. So if you have a ton of time on your hands, you can definitely pursue this idea. But you have to reckon with the fact that there will be a lot of problems with verifying whether the source is describing IQ or CoI. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EducatedRedneck Thank you for your patience. I think we are much closer to understanding each other now. I do not object to a new thread being started, but I have attempted to answer your questions below.
Regarding [source 2]in the article, I agree with you that this does not reflect IQ is a city (rather that IC is the central business district) - that is why I moved this citation further into the article on 18 July, a change that was reverted by TFEU. [25].
Appreciate your concerns with the differing maps, this was maybe not the best example as the Bureau of Statistics has split the urban area into two separate SA3s, as the eastern portion corresponds to the new suburban developments in Springfield - Redbank [26] which has been developed within the 2009 Urban footprint, but only very recently. If this is not suitable, that is ok.
I'm still working on Dfadden's definition of IQ, but I'm guessing it's rooted in where the historical Ipswich grew and became the CoI, in which case yes, IQ would be a city because it was one before expanding and never stopped being one. This is correct. Does this source [27] sufficiently support my claim? It clearly discusses that Ipswich was declared a city in 1904. This article [28] provides additional context to show, while the local government boundaries surrounding IQ have changed regularly since then, IQ as a city has remained constant for 120 years.
The Shire of Morton was merged into a single Local Government Area in 1995. Unfortunately, that Local Government Area continued to call itself the "City of Ipswich" which I suspect is the root of the confusion here, despite doubling its area of jurisdiction to areas well beyond the established city. This did not mean Ipswich (IQ) ceased to be a city. Rather the Ipswich City Council (predecessor of CoI) was reorganized to provide administrative functions for the expanded region. Please have a look through the timeline at [29] to see how the local government boundaries have changed over time, but there has always been a city called Ipswich located within at least one of these.
In a similar way that Ipswich (IQ) endures as a city, outlying towns like Rosewood did not cease to be towns once when Local Government boundaries were shifted. In fact, Rosewood has existed within 3 separate local government jurisdictions since 1903: the Rosewood Shire, which was then absorbed into the Shire of Morton in 1949, which merged with the City of Ipswich in 1995. Nobody is disputing the claim that Rosewood is a separate town to Ipswich, despite both sitting wholly within the current administrative boundaries of the City of Ipswich. Dfadden (talk) 01:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I dont live in Queensland, so i cannot easily access the offline State Archives, but i imagine if we could locate a pre-1995 map, this would clearly show a boundary for Ipswich City that closely aligns with the developed areas of the urban city, while the outlying towns and rural areas to the south and west would be shown as sitting within the Shire of Morton. If there is anyone who can access this, it might help clarify the matter once and for all. For non-Australans, i recommend reading Local government in Queensland that explains why modern LGAs don't necessarily consist of, or share borders with a single city, but rather function as regions for service provision, regulation and political representation.Dfadden (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kerry (talk) 03:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A big thanks to everyone for engaging in a good discussion on a complex subject; we're making progress, and I feel like we're getting close to something we can all agree on!
@Dfadden I'll have to think more on this. My knee-jerk reaction is that the article you presented could just as easily be referring to CoI as IQ, and the timeline seems consistent only with CoI, not IQ. (It refers to gaining territory which is outside of the IQ area according to the 2011 census, and losing territory with borders on CoI, but is nowhere near IQ, such as Karana Downs.)
I'll have to think more on your argument that IQ the city did not cease to exist. My thinking was that the city called Ipswich grew into CoI, and the area that 1905 Ipswich occupied is no longer a complete city; the city grew to encompass all of CoI. I'll have to sit with this, because there are some glaring flaws in this logic; Rome started as a city, and when Rome grew to be an empire, the city of Rome remained. Though I suppose to be an apples-to-apples comparison, it'd have to be Rome growing into a bigger Rome; is the original founding district still the City of Rome? I'll consider.
Also, thank you @Kerry Raymond for the historical map. While it's not a perfect mapping (things do change over time, after all!) it does show an area that approximates the IQ urban area. It does seem to be different from the IQ statistical area, even accounting for the Redbank area. I think I'll start a new section on how we define IQ; while we're coming closer to a consensus, I'm getting more confused, not less, on what IQ actually is. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @EducatedRedneck:, please be more reasonable and careful. Dfadden writes a lot about Ipswich but it's mostly about history. You should not treat his comments as reliable source of information because these are just his opinions/his interpretation about maps and informations from the Internet. What worries me is that Dfadden will post a long text about Ipswich's history and then post some link and you treat it as revealed truth. This is just his opinion and his interpretation adapted to convince us of his version. Sure, you can read his opinions, but they are just his opinions based on his interpretation - and that is how it should be treated. As I show below, his interpretation is often wrong or far-fetched. For example:
  • Dfadden say: Does this source [27] sufficiently support my claim? It clearly discusses that Ipswich was declared a city in 1904. This article [28] provides additional context to show, while the local government boundaries surrounding IQ have changed regularly since then, IQ as a city has remained constant for 120 years - IQ as a city has remained constant for 120 years, from 1904 as stard to now? As city? No, Ipswich (IQ) existed from 1904 to today, without changing borders for 120 years, but there is no source that it still has city status. EducatedRedneck, now you see what it does Dfadden. Dfadden uses synthesis to draw conclusions and provides sources, but describes them in the discussion here in a distorted way, drawing conclusions that are not supported by sources.
    • The sources indicate that: Ipswich (IQ) has not changed the size of its borders in 120 years
    • Dfadden write to you that: Ipswich city (IQ) has existed continuously as a city for 120 years.
      • EducatedRedneck, do you see the difference? As you can see, using sources and a huge amount of text (mainly city history) you can manipulate the content to match the point of view of a given user. EducatedRedneck - therefore, I ask you to be careful.
  • Dfadden say: The Shire of Morton was merged into a single Local Government Area in 1995. Unfortunately, that Local Government Area continued to call itself the "City of Ipswich" which I suspect is the root of the confusion here, despite doubling its area of jurisdiction to areas well beyond the established city. This did not mean Ipswich (IQ) ceased to be a city - but it did not mean that the city continued to exist. It is normal in the world that when a larger city (for example CoI) absorbs a smaller one (for example IQ), it takes over his function. This is not only normal, but it cannot be otherwise. It cannot be a situation where a large city (for example CoI) has a mayor, city council, budget, political relations and has in interior an entity (e.g. IQ) with the same features and capabilities. Such a thing could not exist, because it would generate huge administrative and political problems. Ipswich (IQ) has lost city privileges such as a mayor, city council, budget, political relations, etc and therefore it is no longer a city, since its absorption by City of Ipswich (CoI). Ipswich (IQ) was founded as a city in 1904, but for several dozen years (since 1995 or more) no longer has a mayor, city council, budget, political relations - Am I right? Of course, we all know that already. So as you can see, curently Ipswich (IQ) that existed in the same borders for 120 years is not the same as 1904 in terms of function. It no longer has the same status as a city. I guess that's obvious.
  • So you see for yourself that no matter how many KB of Ipswich's history a Dfadden inserts to this discussion, it won't change anything. I don't deny that once the Ipswich (IQ) was a city. Now it's not, especially since 1995. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You would do better to provide some alternative evidence, or at least participate in the discussion below about what we call IQ, than to attack me. Dfadden (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not attacking anyone. I have noticed that your interpretation dominates this discussion due to the vast amount of content you post. Sometimes your interpretation is wrong or far-fetched and I have shown that above. I am not judging your motives or goodwill. I have only asked EducatedRedneck to be more careful when reading another user's interpretation. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What Is Ipswich, Queensland?

In the above discussion, it seems that there's no consistent or clear definition on what constitutes Ipswich, Queensland (hereafter IQ). The Central Business District of Ipswich Central (hereafter IC) is well-defined and has its own article. Similarly, the greater area of the City of Ipswich (hereafter CoI) is also well-defined, but neither IC nor CoI seem to match what the article says IQ is. In order to determine whether IQ qualifies as a city, I think we must define what IQ is. Pinging those involved in the above discussion: @Kerry Raymond: @Dfadden: @TravelerFromEuropeanUnion:

So what is Ipswich, Queensland? How do we define it, and how do we find sources that reference it and not IC or CoI? EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give my two cents. One possibility is to use the 2021 census] area as a definition. The article seems to lean on this for populations estimates already. This is my preference as it is unambiguous, clear, and verifiable.
Another possibility is to use the historical seat of a city called Ipswich that eventually became CoI. Above, significant effort has provided documentation for the growth of IQ into CoI. This does present a complication of what snapshot do we take to define those limits; IQ grew in spurts, and depending on which year is chosen, the boundaries change. Or, if it's not based on clear boundaries, we may have to reevaluate some of the sourcing in the article, as some of it (e.g., the census population figures) seems firmly rooted in an area. I'm also worried that it'd be easy to get sucked down a rabbit hole of, "If it grew into the CoI, then a source refers to CoI, not IQ."
Those are my two ideas, but I'm sure there's plenty I didn't consider. I'm looking forward to hearing others' thoughts! EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be helpful if you could share your view on what defines a "city" vs. what you understand a Local Government Area to be? At least if we can be clear on that distinction, we would know if we are coming from the same place. Dfadden (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much of an opinion; I consider the term "city" to be pretty loosely defined, which is why I'm looking for a more rigorous definition for IQ. Within the context of this article, a local government area (the capitals you used make me think there's already formal and legal use there) is an administrative area for the lowest level of government, defined by the boundaries set by the administering bodies. They can be called a town, city, shire, or region, per the article you helpfully linked. I would consider a city to be a local government area that has been recognized as a city. (Heck, I'd even accept one which styles itself as a city.) So I suppose my definition of a "city" is political, not geographic or demographic. I'm aware there can be others, though, so I look forward to hearing your thoughts; you've been very generous to dispel my misconceptions so far, and I'm hopeful that'll continue. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EducatedRedneckThankyou. That helps. I recognise a "city" as a permanent and distinct urban area consisting of a group of suburbs surrounding a central business district that share a collective, historical and cultural civic identity. In other words, a city is a physical place defined by its characteristics and citizens. This perhaps best sums up what IQ is.
A Local Government Area is an ''administrative'' body that is responsible for the provision of civic services including maintenance of parks, roads, libraries etc as well as collecting levies to pay for these services, with an elected council and a mayor to oversee these functions across regions that may contain a number of cities, suburbs, towns and villages. It would not exist unless there are cities and towns for it to provide these functions.
Perhaps that sounds like a case of the chicken or the egg, so let me raise a further condundrum if we apply your the definition of a city as a political entity. If we accept that a Local Government Area is what defines an Australian city, then i think ypu will agree we should do so consistently. Yet what about Canberra? It is very much a city, but has no local government authority at all - instead these services are provided directly by the territorial government. Thus I dont think its a suitable metric to define a "city". There is only one tier of Local Government in all other states of Australia, with no distinction between counties and cities, the Australian Bureau of Statistics makes no distinction between types of LGA. Instead they are all just considered LGAs regardless of whether they are named as a "City", "Shire", "Municipality", "Region" etc. These terms are often historic, as is the case for CoI, but all function the same way, per the wikipedia article Local Government in Australia.
As @User:Kerry Raymond previously alluded to, had the Ipswich LGA branded itself the "Ipswich Region" (as opposed to the City of Ipswich) when the amalgamation with the surrounding Shire occurred, we would not likely be having this discussion. For example, Cairns is a city that sits within an LGA called "Cairns Region", which was formed through the amalgamation of the City of Cairns LGA and the Shires of Mulgrave and Douglas LGAs. The Cairns article states that Cairns is a city in the Cairns Region, Queensland... Nobody has contested this, despite there also being separate articles for the Cairns Region (LGA), Cairns City (Central suburb/CBD) and a defunct historical City of Cairns (administrative body).
Does this make sense? Dfadden (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there are other articles does not mean anything, these are no proof of anything - because as we have all noticed - there is a problem with the naming of places in Australia, and therefore other articles may also have incorrect and misleading names. That is why I previously agitated to create a larger discussion on the issue of Australian places in some public and neutral place on Wikipedia, to discuss the issue in a broad sense. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Small summary: as I pointed out above, virtually all of the content about the history by Dfadden is useless here. There is a huge amount of text about the history and added few links in the discussion, but the content itself is just one user's interpretation. As I showed above, his interpretation is often wrong or far-fetched. I am not talking about the desire (behavior) in the sense of attacking a person, I am only describing the content. Based on above historical content, all we can conclude is that Ipswich (IQ) was founded as a city. There are no sources that confirm that this city still exists. As I showed above, I quote: It is normal in the world that when a larger city (for example CoI) absorbs a smaller one (for example IQ), it takes over his function. This is not only normal, but it cannot be otherwise. It cannot be a situation where a large city (for example CoI) has a mayor, city council, budget, political relations and has in interior an entity (e.g. IQ) with the same features and capabilities. Such a thing could not exist, because it would generate huge administrative and political problems. Ipswich (IQ) has lost city privileges such as a mayor, city council, budget, political relations, etc and therefore it is no longer a city, since its absorption by City of Ipswich (CoI). Ipswich (IQ) was founded as a city in 1904, but for several dozen years no longer has a mayor, city council, budget, political relations - Am I right? Of course, we all know that already. So as you can see, curently Ipswich (IQ) that existed in the same borders for 120 years is not the same as 1904 in terms of function. It no longer has a city. I guess that's obvious". Moreover, I wonder what we are doing here in the discussion? We decide (instead of the sources) whether Ipswich is a city? This is against Wikipedia rules. We do not have the right to decide whether Ipswich is a city or not, the sources must write about it. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 21:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is one of the most pointless discussions I have seen on Wikipedia for some time (and I've been on wiki for many years). There are many articles about cities on Wikipedia which are no different to Ipswich. Take Lyon as an example. The first sentence in that article describes Lyon as a city (a term which it links to Urban area (France)) without citing anything and then goes on to talk about distinction between the City of Lyon (which appears to be the subject of the article) and the Metropolis of Lyon (which appears to be the elected local government area). It goes on to say "Lyon and 58 suburban municipalities have formed since 2015 the Metropolis of Lyon, a directly elected metropolitan authority now in charge of most urban issues", The article on the Metropolis says "it is a directly elected metropolitan authority encompassing the city of Lyon and most of its suburbs". So if this is OK for this local government area in France to contain a city, why not here in Australia? Since the article city on Wikipedia clearly explains that there isn't some kind of universal standard for cities but talks about cities generally being urban areas with large populations, so why don't we just solve the problem by saying in the lede for Ipswich, Queensland that "Ipswich is a city within the larger local government area of City of Ipswich in Queensland, Australia." and cite the QPN and the ABS Census data to demonstrate it is a urban area with a large population. If anyone feels this is still an issue, can I suggest you take the topic to WikiProject Cities and try to find an international solution for what is clearly a wider issue than Ipswich. Kerry (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't understand what Lyon is about. "Lyon" is a city with a population of 522,250, while "Metropolis of Lyon" (fr. Métropole de Lyon) is not a city, it is an association of the city of Lyon and several dozen neighboring communes, with total population of 1,424,069. There are many such examples in France like Métropole Nice Côte d'Azur etc and Europe like Portugal "Área Metropolitana de Lisboa" (not to be confused with Lisbon metropolitan area) or Polish Metropolis GZM, which includes many contiguous cities in this country. This is not a city within a city. This is the city of Lyon + dozens of surrounding municipalities, which have created a union of contiguous cities / metropolitan association called the metropolis. There is no equivalent to "Metropolis of Lyon" in Australia. I know this whole subject because I worked as a metropolitan advisor in one of them. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I ask you the same question I asked EducatedRedneck - what is your understanding of a Local Government Area and how of how local government jurisdictions are organised in Australia? Bearing in mind, you say you have experience as a metropolitan advisor in France. In that case, you would have a deep understanding of how these divisions operate and I would not argue against you on matters related to French metropolitan authorities. Can you agree that it is also possible that some of the contributors to this conversation have had direct experience of working for government authorities in Australia? If that is the case, they may understand how Australian local government divisions operate better than you do? Dfadden (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As for your comparisons with the City of Ipswich (CoI) and Ipswich (IQ), there is absolutely no relation to any metropolitan associations in Europe. You still don't understand one thing: like the City of Ipswich, every city in the world has a historic city within it (most often referred to as the city center or downtown) and surrounding areas (most often other towns absorbed in the past). Also in Europe, when in the city (for example Berlin), people colloquially say "I'm going to the city", i.e. to the center (for example Mitte). This is natural. However, this does not create from Mitte (locality) a city within the Berlin city limits. This is just "colloquially" term. For God's sake. It can't be explained any simpler.
    I have full knowledge of a Local Government Area in Australia, because my studies at university and my job required such knowledge. In addition, compared to you, I also have knowledge of the territorial division in many countries in the world. Thanks to this, I noticed serious irregularities in Australian articles and I see that what is called "city" in some Australian places like IQ is no longer a city but only was one in the past and now it is the central part of the real city like City of Ipswich. As you can see above, the user from USA also has trouble understanding the Australian naming issue, and the lack of sources about the city status to the Ipswich, Queensland is confirms my concerns. Maybe stop focusing on the tip of your nose and you should finally reconsider your reasoning and stop forcing international project of the Wikipedia to use Australian point of view and colloquial local different/distinct terms. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 00:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not ask if you know what a Local Government Area is, I asked if you could tell us your understanding of how they are organised. This was not to question your academic credentials or to compare our relative expertise. Rather, the whole root of this issue seems to come about because Ipswich (a city) sits within a LGA called "City of Ipswich". This seems very obvious to me and others (but not to you), so i am trying to understand the rationale behind your point of view that you also claim is obvious (it is not to me - i cannot speak for the US based editor) and work towards a resolution and consensus. Dfadden (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You asked me could tell you my understanding of how they are LGA's organised. My answer is: like most cities around the world. LGA, for example - City of Ipswich, like every city in the world has a historic city within it (most often referred to as the city center or downtown) - Ipswich, Queensland (IQ) and surrounding areas (most often other towns absorbed in the past). Most often, these parts of the city do not have any administrative functions exactly like Ipswich, Queensland (IQ). The functions of the former (historical) city were taken over by the current city, exactly like old Ipswich, Queensland (IQ) and new City of Ipswich. The boundaries of most cities in the world have changed over time, just like the City of Ipswich. Everything is correct. These are standard things on the world. That's not all. There are cities (e.g. Berlin) that consist of administrative parts that have a certain degree of local autonomy. Despite everything, no one recognizes these parts as cities within a city. For comparison: Ipswich, Queensland has no administrative function, no legal form, and you create a city out of it. More than one person in the world would be able to do a facepalm when they see what the some Australian users are doing in English Wikipedia.
    You want work towards a resolution and consensus. Great, me too. But for now we have nealy 100,000 bytes of discussion, a huge amount of historical texts that are completely useless for seeking a resolution because they only help us understand what Ipswich was like in the past. We do not have any sources that clearly state that Ipswich, Queensland (IQ) is currently a city, but we do have source clearly state that Ipswich, Queensland (IQ) is a urban center oand we have next sources confirming that City of Ipswich is a city. Despite the fact that I have shown solutions all over the world in this discussion, and despite the fact that you still do not have any sources confirming the city status of present-day Ipswich, Queensland (IQ), you are still trying to force international project of the Wikipedia to use Australian point of view. How much more time do we have to waste for you to understand that using neutral terms (like "population centre" or "populated place" or "locality", "urban centre") is the most reasonable here, instead of the very controversial and disputed term "city", which even has no sources. What will be your next step? Will you again insert many KB of your interpretation of some historical map, which in no way proves that the current Ipswich, Queensland (IQ) has the status of a city? Or maybe you will come up with other methods? For now this discussion is going nowhere, this discussion is pointless. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already proposed using the term "urban centre" in the article lede on 7 September, which TFEU seems agreeaable to. At that time, @EducatedRedneck didn't seem comfortable with this, so the discussion continued. We do seem to be going in circles now however.
    For the sake of closing this discussion. can we consider a lede that says Ipswich, Queensland is an urban centre within the City of Ipswich Local Government Area? There are sources that explicitly support this. I agree with @Kerry Raymond that if editors believe there is a broader issue concerning Australian cities, a more appropriate place to discuss this would be WP:CITY. I would encourage TFEU to raise their concerns there where they might get a variety of international perspectives and provide space for everyone to cool off. Can we all agree on this proposal? Dfadden (talk) 03:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I fully support the compromise about "urban center"+source(s). I have not noticed that EducatedRedneck being uncomfortable with it. However, it's worth asking. I hope that @EducatedRedneck: will respond to the question of whether or not he supports such a compromise. I have nothing against starting a broader discussion in the future in a broader context in WP:CITY or similar page. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd certainly support such a compromise; I expect it will be much easier to find sources that (without having to explain to ignorant Americans like me! :p ) refer to IQ as an urban center. My apologies for giving the impression I was uncomfortable with it earlier; it seems like a great compromise to me. Thank you both for engaging in an exhausting but ultimately productive discussion! I appreciate that you both pushed yourselves to find a consensus, and am grateful to you both for having done so. :) EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ipswich,_Queensland