Talk:Rockhampton

Rockhampton, Queensland

Moved from article:

This page uses WikiProject U.S. states as a guide to formatting, and is still a work in progress.

Backpackers

Anyone have any infomation regarding accomidation in rocky?

Hell

Anyone got a photo of the "Hell" in lights from Mt Archer?

If noone does I'll see if I can get GNU-liscenced copy from either The Morning bulletin or Roving Enteprises (only tow official orgs I know that might have it).--ZZ 14:59, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The abc showed a documentary about a chick who grew up rockhampton, you might be able to get it off them. Otherwise I'll take a photo next time I go up there.

Puppetry of the Penis banned?

This is wrong. Initially the city council voted to not allow the show. About a week later they caved to the nationwide backlash and relented.

Just in case I am mistaken, I'm checking the morning bulletin archives. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jc3k (talk • contribs) 2006-03-02 19:41:52.

Ah! I heard of the original rejection and as an ex-Rocky boy it sounded just like the local council. It if did indeed proceed then it shouldn't be in the article. Garglebutt / (talk) 09:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Rockhampton's First School

This looks like a cut and paste out of a copyrighted work (not sure of the duration of copyright in Australia). I have formatted it as an extended quote for now but I'm not sure it can stay. Garglebutt / (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Where would I have to go to find the archives? I'm trying to improve the Emmaus College article.Joeldipops 12:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

US WWII bases

There were at least two WWII US air force bases around, Rockhampton, 1st. where the current international airport is, 2nd. was located about half way between Rockhampton and the east coast at a place know as Hedlow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.60.192 (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Newspapers

I am proposing deleting everything but the first paragraph in the seciton on newspapers as it strays considerably off the topic of a geography article. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I support a major trim, however I would keep the first two paras. If there were sources I would suggest moving the fourth para to The Morning Bulletin and a trimmed down version of the rest to the History section. The list of people and radio stations could be comfortably trimmed as well. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I have trimmed it myself.

Content of Newspaper section

Below is the removed content from this section should it be useful elsewhere:

A satirical paper called "The Mourning Bulltin" was occasionally produced during the Capricarna Festival, it contained stories about local events (some factual, some purely ficticious) written in a satirical style.

A rival newspaper, the Northern Argus, appeared January 3, 1863, becoming a daily newspaper in 1875. Initially the Bulletin was held to be more conservative while the Argus was more radical, though in 1895, the Argus was bought by Stewart Hartley, the son in law of Charles Hardie Buzzacott (who had been editor of the Bulletin after his brother William) and reissued as the Daily Record. The paper was bought by Thomas J. Ryan, later Labor Premier of Queensland, and became a vehicle for Labor policies. It became the Evening News in 1922, and was later bought by and incorporated into the Bulletin by 1941.

The Capricornian was a weekly newspaper launched on January 2, 1875, which was amalgamated with the Artesian, another weekly newspaper, to be reissued as the Central Queensland Herald on January 1, 1930, before ceasing circulation in 1956. Another rival paper from the 1890s was the Peoples Newspaper edited after 1896 by Wallace Nelson, who was described as "Rockhampton's Breeziest Editor and Most Attractive Speaker".

The short-lived but inventively named Rockhampton Laughing Jackass was a weekly newspaper founded by Louis Marcellin Martin in 1881. Colourful, irreverent and humorous it ceased publication in mid 1882 due to financial difficulties. The idea of a satirical journal was resurrected twenty years later with the launch of the Cornucopian on January 1 1901, however it was equally short lived.

North Rockhampton had its own newspaper for some years from 1885; the Rockhampton Temperance Advocate which became the North Rockhampton Times & Blackall Electorate Advertiser. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead section

definitely could be expanded as per WP:LEAD Michellecrisp (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Table of radio stations

Is it needed? seems to be not consistent with WP:NOT#DIR? Michellecrisp (talk) 01:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:WIN News Rockhampton Presenters.png

The image File:WIN News Rockhampton Presenters.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Notable peeps

Karl Stephenovic(sp) was born in Rockhampton, or so it says on his wiki page. 70.77.220.229 (talk) 04:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. There is easily a rough consensus to move, in that all but one of the opponents quote Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Australia as their main or only reason for opposing, and there is currently no consensus supporting this convention as is, see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2011/March#Current discussions?. One of the oppose votes below even supports a change to the convention. I encourage all who participated in this discussion to now help get the convention sorted out; This discussion will help. Andrewa (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Rockhampton, Queensland → Rockhampton — "Rockhampton" is currently a disambiguation page but "Rockhampton, Queensland" is clearly the primary topic. The other two articles linked on the disambiguation page are an unreferenced sub-stub on an English village and a derivative article on the city centre of Rockhampton. While a "Rockhampton (disambiguation) page could be created, I feel it would be simpler to use a hat note. While the naming guidelines for Australian places as currently written states that mandatory disambiguation is required, this guideline no longer enjoys wide consensus and the results of recent move discussions at Talk:Ballarat#Requested move, Talk:Whyalla#Requested move and Talk:Alice Springs#Requested move reflect this. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 07:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

What are the arguments to maintain the disambig? Otherwise, I'd say move it. --Merbabu (talk) 08:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support Clearly the primary topic.--Melburnian (talk) 09:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with the move per rationale as stated Privatemusings (talk) 09:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support Primary topic and sufficiently recognisable/inobscure at national/international level. Orderinchaos 07:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose move due to ambiguity with the Rockhampton CBD article and the lesser known Rockhampton in England. At the most, I would support Rockhampton being redirected to this article as being the more recognised Rockhampton with a hatnote for the lesser recognised Rockhampton in England. As for the Rockhampton CBD article, it could either be cleaned up, or a merge discussion to merge it in here if regular contributors to this article wish to do so. On a related note in regards to the 2 Rockhampton articles, Cities like Ipswich, Queensland, Ipswich (suburb), Queensland and Redcliffe have similar absurd arrangements. Sb617 (Talk) 13:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
• comment: I think there is a convention for all non-capital Australian cities to be at City, State for sake of convenience when wondering what to wikilink to (how many Cunnamullas are there?). Maybe this has changed or I am mistaken. ZayZayEM (talk) 03:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support- Support for the mandatory disambiguation of Australian place names has pretty well evaporated, and it is contrary to Wikipedia:Article_titles#Precision_and_disambiguation. Rockhampton in Queensland is clearly the primary topic for this title, and if there is a confusion with Rockhampton's CBD this will not be solved by retaining the comma Queensland bit. Reyk _YO! 06:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose There has been no consensus to change the wording of the Naming Convention for Australia (though it is something I would support). As such, that convention still stands, and deviating from it for a few special cases can only create confusion and lead to edit warring. People who know the conventions exist will look to the naming convention for guidance, and will find it should be Rockhampton, Queensland. By all means keep trying to change the naming convention, but if you cannot gain consensus to do so, the rule on Wikipedia is that the status quo remains. Skinsmoke (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Based on the above, can I expect to see you develop RM discussions for Whyalla, Alice Springs, Geraldton and Ballarat to bring them brought back into line with the convention? Despite the rather horrid recent experience at WT:NCGN re: US places, there is no need for an all-guns blazing RfC to take place for a guideline to evolve. Guidelines are as much descriptive of existing practice as they are prescriptive for future practice, if not more so. There is nothing wrong with the naming guideline as it is written to lag behind somewhat the convention as it is actually used. That is how any consensus for change is best identified, not through rambling vitriol filled discussion that ends up being little more than a headcount.. As for claims of edit warring and confusion, there is quite a list of Australian places under their common sense names - see User:Mattinbgn/Undisambiguated Australian places - and there has not been any mass outbreaks of confusion among readers and editors, nor have there been any great edit wars. Change has proceeded at a steady pace to allow editors to feel comfortable with the change and if and when it appears that there is a solid consensus to change the written guideline, no doubt someone will propose one. That is much likely to see a rational discussion at WT:NCGN than a speculative change based on unknown levels of support and without clear precedent showing the proposed changes are workable. The latter path sees a result like WT:NCGN#RFC: United States cities, a divisive mess. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 04:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
• In my opinion, if you've got a general rule that enjoys widespread acceptance and consensus then any specific exception to that rule needs continued support. If that dries up then editors are more than welcome to revert back to the general one. In the case of the mandatory disambiguation of Australian place names, it is clear that this exception no longer has the support it needs to remain in place. Mattinbgn is right in saying that guidelines reflect what is actually done rather than prescribing what must be done, and it seems to me that the current practice is moving away from the pointless disambiguation of Australian place names. Reyk _YO! 08:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The convention is clear and should be followed.Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment Why does this article need disambiguation, other than WP:ILIKEIT? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It is the convention, which complies with the Wikipedia guidelines, there are other articles similarly titled and changing it without changing the guideline just because you don't like it is a divisive mess.Alanscottwalker (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

If a guideline no longer has support, perhaps the guideline needs to change. Guidelines are supposed to reflect current practice, not act as inviolable laws (hence the word "guideline"). Talk:Alice Springs#Requested move would be a fair idea of where consensus on the Australian convention is at present. The Australian guideline is clearly in a state of flux and there appears to be some consensus for at least a broadening of the convention. There seems to me to be no reason to think that evolutionary, gradual change is any worse than only permitting change only through the inevitably messy revolutionary process of an RfC. Indeed, the gradual approach seems to me to be preferable, especially where an RfC discussion is likely to be railroaded by editors using the discussion as a proxy war for the US convention. It doesn't need to be divisive, unless we make it so. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I could not disagree more, what you propose is anarchy. If the guideline should be changed then properly change it. In the meantime, it's the guideline and therefore must be presumed (even by you) to have the support of the community. Your hope, or wish, or reading of this or that move is no substitute for a Wikipedia guideline that has been already adopted by the community. Nothing could be more divisive to the community then just ignoring guidelines we have already adopted as a community. Alanscottwalker (talk) 06:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines can be broken, the "Naming Convention" clearly has no support from the community and nothing prevents articles being moved to more suitable naming. Bidgee (talk) 06:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

But I am not ignoring consensus, I am clearly seeking it. What else is this RM discussion for if not to seek consensus? I am not sure why I should presume the convention as written has the support of the community when Talk:Whyalla#Requested move, Talk:Ballarat#Requested move and Talk:Geraldton#Requested move tell me something else entirely. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It appears you will insist that I take your word for what guidelines are and aren't supported. I won't. Ignoring this guideline does not improve Wikipedia, there is no improvement to the encyclopedia by this change, you merely wish to replace it with another that you like better, while the convention still stands. Alanscottwalker (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) No I am not asking you to take my word for anything. I am pointing you towards evidence that the guidelines no longer wide support—Talk:Whyalla#Requested move, Talk:Ballarat#Requested move and Talk:Geraldton#Requested move, etc, etc. Quite obviously I think the encyclopedia will be improved by this change, which will bring the naming of this article back in line with the way that articles are named across the rest of the encyclopedia with the exception of the walled garden that are US place names. You disagree, that's fine. I would prefer a better argument than WP:PRIOR however. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 07:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

If you really want a new discussion about the Australian convention then propose a change to that guideline as other editors have suggested.Alanscottwalker (talk) 07:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Your concept that nothing is allowed to change until an all-in shitfight takes place somewhere is bizarre, and is contrary to how change has taken place across the encyclopedia over the past 10 years. It is also contrary to the consensus shown at Talk:Whyalla#Requested move, Talk:Ballarat#Requested move and Talk:Geraldton#Requested move, etc, etc. We are here to talk about Rockhampton, not rewrite a guideline. If it is good enough for Australian places to be exempt from the general naming policy as shown at WP:AT, then surely it is equally fine for Rockhampton to be exempt from the Australian "convention" as presently written. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 09:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Your emotional you "don't like it" arguments like this by arguing out of two sides of your mouth by now conveniently trumpeting "its always been done it this way" to support your position, after you have accused other editors of that, is what's damaging to Wikipedia. I am not the only editor who has suggested you go about it by changing the guideline. At Wikipedia, we discuss, we don't s*-fight. You neither believe in the community, nor improve the encyclopedia.Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: Time to stop the personal attacks and bad faith, it doesn't help anyone. Bidgee (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It is clear that you and I are going to be unable to find common ground so this is my last comment in this little discussion. WP:NCGN#Australia states: "Most Australian town/city/suburb articles are at Town, State no matter what their status of ambiguity is". This is presently a statement of fact. However, where in this guideline does it say that Australian town/city/suburb articles must be at Town, State? The guidelines do not prohibit this move and continually asserting that they do is tendentious. Further, if you have evidence that this move will damage the encyclopedia, let's hear it. Continual assertions unsupported by evidence do not make your argument any stronger. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support Rockhampton is clearly to primary topic and disambiguation is unnecessary for a location which is far more notable then the city centre (Rockhampton CBD) and English village. Bidgee (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Very clearly the primary topic and nowhere in the guidelines does it say that the state name is required anymore. These guidelines are on the verge of changing anyway. Nightw 02:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Primary topic Fmph (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Separate suburbs articles unnecessary - Suburbs section to be made into table.

The Suburbs section currently contains a list of suburbs, each which link to their own separate Wikipedia articles. Almost all of these links are dead links as no such separate article exists anyway. For the working links, most go to a stub article which simply reiterates that the suburb is a suburb of Rockhampton, and lists its 2006 census population. Only 2 or 3 working links go to any more of that, and those pages are still stubs themselves. I propose that these separate articles be deleted, the links removed, and the Suburbs section be changed into table format which can display the suburb name, census data and any other relevent information in a separate column titled Notes or More Info or something like that. I don't think the separate suburbs of Rockhampton are so noteworthy as to warrant their own Wikipedia articles, especially when no-one seems to be able to think of anything to write anyway. FatDaks (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the general thrust of what you propose given the current state of the articles in question. I would suggest not deleting the existing suburbs articles but rather redirecting them to the relevant section in the Rockhampton article. If fact, if you intend to use the information in the stubs in the main article, you cannot delete the stubs under Wikipedia's licencing arrangements otherwise the editors of the stub articles will no longer be able to credited for their work.

Also, I see your move as a temporary one only until someone takes an interest and expands them. There is plenty of scope to expand all of those stub articles into fully fledged articles of their own and every one of those suburbs could justify an article in their own right. There would be an absolute multitude of high quality, relevant sources available at the State Library of Queensland or at the Rockhampton Regional Library Service if someone wanted to expand them. See Caversham, New Zealand for a great example of what an article about a suburb of a regional city can become if someone takes an interest. Caversham is no more "notable" than Wandal. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all your points, including the separate articles becoming redirects rather than being deleted. That's actually what I had meant originally, and referring to them being deleted was an error. Thanks for the input. --FatDaks (talk) 07:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the suburbs table after no disagreement since April 2011. Its my first Wikipedia table - there's still some work to be done on correcting the header widths. I also intend to add a column for the suburb co-ordinates. FatDaks (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Dubious

The wikilink Brothers Old Boys has been added by an anon editor in this article as a Rockhampton sports team. According to the BOB's article they are a Brisbane team which arose from a Brisbane school and there is no mention there of a connection to Rockhampton. But there is a Rockhampton Brothers Rugby Union Team website, which uses a similar looking logo to BOB and this Fraternity web page suggests there are multiple Brothers football teams in some kind of fraternal relationship (guessing teams of old boys of various Christian Brothers schools). Can anyone more knowledgable about rugby union sort this out? If it's one team, can the connection to Rockhampton be mentioned in the BOB article? If it's a separate team, can we change the name of the team in this article and remove the wikilink to the Brisbane team? Or whatever else makes sense. Kerry (talk) 23:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Royal visits

There appears to be too much detail about the monarchy instead of the city. How about we remove the recently added section and place it on Royal visits to Australia? - Shiftchange (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be out of proportion there too because there is so much detail (but it is all well-cited so I would be reluctant to prune it back). I would suggest putting it into its own article Royal visits to Rockhampton with appropriately brief versions in Rockhampton and Royal visits to Australia which link to it. Kerry (talk) 04:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Population ranking (lede)

According to the Wikipedia listing of most populous places in Qld, Rocky would come 5th after the SEQ cities/conurbations, not 4th. The 2015 report cited is not the census and is not that utilised in the Wikipedia list. Can this please be adjusted such that separate wiki pages do not disagree with another? I’ve not done so, but put it up for discussion or whatever as it’s clear that someone has gone to considerable lengths to ‘prove’ Rocky’s superior size. Boscaswell talk 08:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. Exaggerating the importance of one's home town seems to be pretty common phenomenon; at least this one has a citation.The article you mention is based on 2011 data, so not exactly up-to-date. And whenever anyone goes near these lists of "largest by population", you get caught in the issue of whether you are comparing LGAs or Urban Areas etc (see Talk:List of cities in Australia by population to see the many discussions/arguments that eventually terminate without resolution in this topic area). Because of the capital city urban sprawls absorbing previously disjoint neighbouring towns, notions of "city" and similar have became become "complicated" to say the least. When talking about Rockhampton, do we consider Gracemere? Do we consider Yeppoon and the Capricorn Coast? Right now this article has a citation that supports what it says using some definition of city and 2015 data; it's defensible so I'd leave it be. If you want to fix something, fix List of places in Queensland by population by using more recent population data. Enjoy! 13:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)