Talk:Perth Water

refs

These refs might be useful - copied from Talk:Barrack_Square#original location was further north

• http://www.thebelltower.com.au/downloads/History_and_Development_of_the_Swan_River.pdf
• http://www.historycouncilwa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Foreshore-treasure-Port-of-Perth1.pdf
• http://heritageperth.com.au/properties/barrack-square/

Mitch Ames (talk) 09:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

See also

I disagree with this edit, which adds unnecessary explanatory text - which I believe to be not within the scope of WP:SEEALSO. It's not the role of "See also" to explain the links between articles, unless the connection between the listed article and this one is not apparent. Splitting the list into "categorized" sections would be reasonable if there were a lot of entries, but there are not. At most, the extra text should be limited to something like:

• Melville Water, a section of the Swan River
• Perth waterfront development proposals
• The Esplanade (Perth), public space on the Perth Water foreshore
• Elizabeth Quay, a development project on the north shore of Perth Water

and even that looks like explanatory overkill to me. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

OK by your edits so far today you are reducing the navigability of the the subject and related issues - well at least where a category was changed... (I disagree with this edit - [1] ) - there must be a point where an outside reader might not even understand the connectedness of places and issues - if it gets taken out here, there is a very good argument that the excessively over-pruned main articles need fleshing out...(insufficient context for NPOV fear) - (one thing to battle for NPOV, but also a point where insufficient explanation in between would leave some readers wondering whether the current internet in jokes about colins bath tub and richards tower might become even more unexplainable) satusuro 14:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

It has now got to:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Perth_waterfront = the category has a see also Perth foreshore (disambiguation)

with Perth Water as the main article

however there is anyones guess as to whether either Perth Water or Perth Waterfront development proposals have adequate explanation of the issues that inter-relate - either of the longer history of the various reduction of the foreshore/waterfront, or of the current measures of development.

I dont think the current material found in the articles either relate sufficiently the history, or have the detail possible for any of the articles to adequately provide a reader with knowledge of how the river has been filled in and dug out for the various reasons over time. satusuro 14:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Please discuss category changes at Category talk:Perth waterfront#Category description, see also, main article, although I concede that that discussion and this one are related. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that some more information might be needed about how the various article topics are connected, but the See also section is not the place for it.

• Perhaps we need to expand the History section of Perth Water?
• Would a {{Navbox}} help - Navboxes allow for subdividing, as well as allowing for a limited amount of explanatory text, eg in the group1 etc text.

Mitch Ames (talk) 05:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

City of Perth

Resolved

In the first sentence:

... on the southern edge of the City of Perth, ...

is the first instance of "City of Perth" intended to refer to the local government area (LGA) City of Perth or the capital of WA Perth? If it refers to the LGA, the link should be to City of Perth, not Perth (and the link in the second sentence should be removed). If it refers to the capital city, and the current link is appropriate, then "city" ought not be capitalised because it's not a proper noun in that context. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

changed to Central Business District of Perth Gnangarra 10:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Bounds of Perth Water

I don’t think Perth Water is bounded by the causeway. I have added reference Nice2013, which shows Claise Brook draining into Perth Water: Claise Brook is upstream of the causeway. The only other reference offered for supporting the statement in the opening paragraph is stale. It seems Perth Water is better defined as being bounded by Goongoongup Bridge. OpenStreetMap also needs to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betterkeks (talk • contribs) 06:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)