Talk:Elizabeth Quay

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sections from Previous Proposals to Promotions should be returned to Perth Waterfront Development proposals, as they form part of that discussion, as per the link to the main page.12:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morethangrass (talk • contribs)

We should avoid duplicating content. We also need, I believe, a separate article on EQ, separate from the historical treatment of foreshore developments. In a few year's time it might be appropriate to move the section you mention to the PWDP article. But if we did it now I think this article would seem to be missing something important. Moondyne (talk) 13:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kiosk has apparently been demolished[edit]

According to an article in the West Australian yesterday (p19 of the printed version):

This week the demolition of ... the Florence Hummerston kiosk on the Esplanade was completed ...

The West's article does not mention dismantling for storage and/or future relocation. The wikipedia article should be updated to reflect the Kiosk's current state - but I don't know whether that state is "dismantled and stored" or "gone forever". Mitch Ames (talk) 00:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of City Gatekeepers external link[edit]

I've removed the external link to the City Gatekeepers website added with this edit. The Gatekeepers are mentioned prominently in the article, and adding that link seems to fall into WP:LINKSTOAVOID—particularly "websites of organizations mentioned in an article (unless they otherwise qualify as something that should be linked or considered)". "Avoid undue weight on particular points of view" would also seem to apply—external links should not be added that "give undue weight to minority views". IgnorantArmies 11:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A very large sod[edit]

The caption for File:Esplanade 1st hole gnangarra.jpg needs rewording, although it's not obvious what it should be. There are two problems:

  1. One does not normally dig a hole "for" the turning of the first sod (at least not quite so publicly) - the turning of the sod creates the hole. So perhaps it ought to be "The hole dug by the official turn of the first sod...", but:
  2. Such a hole is usually much smaller, being the space formerly occupied by the first shovelful (or at most a few) of dirt.

I think we need a more accurate caption lest someone think we might be expressing an opinion about the politicians that approved the project.) . Mitch Ames (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is exactly what it is, its the hole dug at the official ceremony for turning of the first sod, they didnt use a shovel they used the digger in the background. I took the photo after seeing the news item on it the previous night. Gnangarra 18:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This video from 1:54 to 2:10 begs to differ. Quoting Colin Barnett, as he and John Day stick the shovels in: "We'll take the first sod".
Similarly, this existing ref includes a photo of "Premier Colin Barnett and Minister for Planning John Day this morning [turning] the first sods" with shovels. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that the caption should be "The hole dug for subsequent to the official turning of the first sod in April 2012". Mitch Ames (talk) 13:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the vid from 2:52 to 2:56 is what was played on the news footage I saw, but either way the hole has since been filled in and wont form any part of the actual quay. Gnangarra 17:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery, Spanda[edit]

There may be merit in cropping File:E37 Elizabeth Quay (1Feb2016) 56.JPG - possibly keeping the original, but uploading a differently-named, cropped version - so that:

  • the sculpture takes up most of the horizontal space, rather than less than the left half, as is currently the case
  • the image does not appear significantly wider than the other two images in the gallery

The result would better illustrate "Spanda" and also present a more balanced appearance on the page. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Elizabeth Quay. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be Elizabeth Quay or Elizabeth quay?[edit]

Railway lines and stations have any Line and Station part of their name lowercased; for example, "Mandurah line" and "Elizabeth Quay station". Therefore, should "Elizabeth Quay" not similarly be "Elizabeth quay"? Betterkeks (talk) 11:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this is endless, and I offer no reply - why not ask the same of Victoria_Quay,_Fremantle JarrahTree 11:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the whole waterfront development, with the proper name (and common name) "Elizabeth Quay". Wikipedia's internal conventions on railway line/station article titles aren't really relevant here. - Evad37 [talk] 23:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Quay, Elizabeth" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Quay, Elizabeth has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 3 § Quay, Elizabeth until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_Quay&oldid=1202831154"