Talk:Gold Coast, Queensland/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

First entries

...shops selling cheap tourist paraphenalia

Yeah, cheap to make, but not to buy ;) -- Tim —Preceding undated comment added 02:08, 13 December 2002

I think it's ironic that they're made in china, and then all the tourists, including chinese tourists, come to buy them. But I guess that doesn't just apply to the Gold Coast...I mean, where's the mass-production sweat shop in Uluru? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eno1 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

---

OK, I've added some piccies. Now to actually write something. Maybe tomorrow... - Gaz 12:33, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

I've moved the following section from the article to here so the article didn't look too much like a work in progress:

To be covered:

• A City Council that is making genuine progress with community consultation on projects that affect the community - great on-line surveys - yes but do they actually do anything with the surveys?
• History of the region (first surfers in the 1950s, development through the Joh era, the arrival of Japanese tourists and developers in the 1980s).
• Description of the city (mention the hinterland development, for instance, the theme parks, the casino, golf courses etc).
• Environmental issues (they have to pump the sand onto the beaches)
• Reputation in Australia (cultural desert, retirement home, wonderful world class surf beaches)
• visitors guide (best time to visit, major events, etc).

--Roisterer 04:18, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

The section on Lamington National Park is just begging for someone to do a page on the history of O'Reilly's, the wreck of the Stinson would provide some good material.

I've sent an email off to through the official OReillys website to ask if we could reproduce the articles they have on their website concerning the history of the family etc, here on Wikipedia.

The website is at http://www.oreillys.com.au/content/home.asp?name=Home

--Randolph 18:22, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

I've noticed the categorising for the suburbs of the Gold Coast has for the most part followed the convention of <suburb name>, Queensland|<suburb name>, with the exception of the Surfers Paradise. Since Surfers Paradise is in an early stage should a new stub be created for Surfers Paradise which follows the same convention as the other suburbs? --Randolph 04:39, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sister Cities

I found a reference to sister cities from the Sister Cities association, which seemed comprehensive and official, but I have since found a new list (with no sources quoted on it), this Reflections website (Gold Coast Map section). They have a slightly different list which I have reproduced below. I'm not sure whether to use this information on not. --Randolph 08:09, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The sister cities on that website are:

   * Noumea (New Caledonia)
   * Fort Lauderdale (USA)
   * Tainan & Taipei (Taiwan)
   * Corfu (Greece)
   * Netanya (Israel)
   * Coolangatta Village (NSW)
   * Kanagawa Prefecture (Japan)

From this I am going to assume first that Corfy is a mispelling of Corfu and edit accordingly. --Randolph 08:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The official Sister Cities website had the wrong details, but I've updated the list based on the Gold Coast City Council's website, which, according to a contact in Council, is correct. The Reflections website hasn't been updated for a couple of years. E-CBD 07:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)E-CBD

I have no official reference to Coolangatta Village, Noumea, Tainan so I'm going to skip those. As for Kanagawa Prefecture, I assume the list of cities from the SCA source are all cities in the prefecture. --Randolph 08:48, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is no such place as "Coolangatta Village" in NSW. Coolangatta is a suburb of Gold Coast City on the Queensland side of the QLD/NSW border, and whilst they can pretend all they like that they're an independent entity, the reality is they are a suburb of GC City like, say, Broadbeach. As soon as you cross the border to NSW, you're in Tweed Heads, not Coolangatta.

Recent removal of the weather section

I recent anonymous edit has removed the section on weather. I can't see any reason for it's removal, and no reason was given by the anonymous editor. If there are no objections, I am going to add it back in at some stage.--Randolph 13:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The only thing I can think is that someone thought it wasn't really expanding on the 'Subtropical' as mentioned in a previous paragraph. I'm new to this whole thing so I didn't want to put it back in myself - I might write a more comprehensive section with stats and averages. E-CBD 07:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)E-CBD

Lead section

I'd like to see some discussion on the Lead section of the article, as its not really conforming to the guidelines set out in Wikipedia:Lead section article. For instance, the mention of the new NRL team and the information on transport links seem out of place in a lead section. I'd suggest they be moved either to an existing or new sub-section of the article. What about a sub-section on Sporting teams on the Gold Coast? --Randolph 06:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've re-written the lead section to conform with the guidelines - it's been cut back drastically, but stuff like the Mayor, and football teams really weren't appropriate. I think the section now does "summarize the most important points covered" in the Wikipedia:Lead section article. The Gold Coast article itself lacks a lot of important historical and tourist-related information, but until that is written, I can't see why the lead section should be much longer than it is now. E-CBD 07:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)E-CBD

I had a look at a re-written version of the lead section and it really didn't conform with the Wiki guidelines - the lead section is supposed to be a concise summary of the article's content, it's not a place to introduce topics, such as real estate, which aren't actually mentioned in the article. I've changed it back to a version I wrote a week or so again - but I'd be interested to hear other's opinions on it. E-CBD 05:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)E-CBD

Anon user

Hi everyone I am your anon user who added to the lead section and added the law and politics section. Sorry to be so cloak and dagger, I only signed up to wikipedia this morning (30/12/05.)

In regards to Lifestyle, I agree with Randolph that it appears to be some kind of softcore pornographic glamourisation and is removed from the subject matter. I recommend deletion. DB 10:32, 30 December 2005 AEST

—Dpbourke (talk • contribs) 00:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent rush of interest in this article

There seems to be a sudden rush of interest in this article, not sure why, but it's ended up getting quite messy. I've deleted a bunch of empty sections, fixed up some grammar and spelling mistakes, and reverted a few sections - irrelevant info has been creeping in and the article was straying out of focus. The history section is just a joke - not surprising when we can't even figure out where the name Gold Coast came from! E-CBD 05:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)E-CBD

--- In relation to the history section, it is quite brief as it only really covers early discovery and exploration of Gold Coast. There is 100 years of history of our City so it can surely be expanded. DB 21:03, 1 January 2006

Gold Coast locator

Could someone please fix the Gold Coast locator-MJC.png image at the top of the page? I have had no luck with it.--WikiCats 02:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Done, however you may want to change the image if more appropriate. DB 04:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Tourist Attractions & Economy

I have added and cleanup the tourism section. A piece on the local economy should be added towards the top. Does anyone have any detailed information on economy? DB 05:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

History Section

I've finally got around to re-writing the entire history section and it's now much more informative - about time! I included the controversy about the origins of the name, I hope that fits in with Wikipedia guidelines. Any comments would be appreciated. E-CBD 03:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)E-CBD

Aboriginal History

This section of the article appears to be factually incorrect as specfic dates even to the year have not been input. Clearly, the section is based on speculation and would therefore not warrant a write up in the article. I recommend deletion. DB 09:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a reference to aboriginal history at this site, http://www.surfersparadise.com/surfers_info/history/ which may assist to verify details. Unfortunately there are no source references cited.--Zassat 12:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps someone should go to the library and look up some aboriginal history in a, dare I say it, book... E-CBD 05:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)E-CBD

OK, I went to the library, apparently Aboriginal people of the Gold Coast actually trained dolphins to help them fish and dingoes to help them hunt - all this information and more in the new, updated, Aboriginal History section! E-CBD 07:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)E-CBD

Suggestion

Great to see some editors working hard on this article. However, could I ask that you all follow the example of featured articles such as Canberra, Mumbai and Ann Arbor, Michigan. This article's layout is quite unorthodox, and the proliferation of headings is disheartening. The structure of articles such as Canberra should serve as a template for the Gold Coast. --cj | talk 12:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Great suggestion, I think we need more pics of the Gold Coast too... E-CBD 00:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)E-CBDd

I agree the layout is becoming very 'busy' and a little hard to follow. I'm doing a bit of a layout rearrangement to see if it will read better and reduce the number of headings--Zassat 20:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Great work! This article looks better already. Perhaps you might be interested in setting up a WikiProject on the Gold Coast? We currently have projects working on each of the capital cities, in addition to Geelong and Lake Macquarie.--cj | talk 03:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

More Pictures

Hello fellow wikipedians, as you are aware I have uploaded a few more pictures, namely the Gold Coast Airport picture and the more obvious aerial overview in the intro section. Are you happy with this form of layout? I figure the aerial overview pic warrants a spot at the top of the article as it is a great aerial shot depicting much of the region. DB 05:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for more pictures. This pix is a bit dark though and I'm not sure that it should be in that position as it makes it a bit of a squeeze for the intro. --WikiCats 13:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree with you both (diplomat that I am !) - the pic is excellent but is a bit dark at that magnification (it's fine full size) and it does indeed squeeze the intro text, though that might also depend on your screen size. Also the left quarter is a darker shade still, making it appear (rightly or wrongly) to have come from 2 pages in a book. Some tweaking in a picture editor should get it looking really good and a resize/reposition might also help. Cheers, Ian Rose 14:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, but are you sure the source isn't copyrighted? It does look like it's been scanned from a brochure. E-CBD 02:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)E-CBD

It is a digital photograph of a framed photograph that my parents took, that is why it is darker.By all means if anyone has the right program, feel free to edit it. DB 10:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I tried to edit that main pic in Photoshop, but it really didn't come up very well, so I took the liberty of replacing it with another one I took this morning from the Q1 Penthouse. There was a storm brewing over Labrador so it was a little hazy, but I think the picture is probably a better resource and really shows the diversity of the area. E-CBD 02:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)E-CBD

I've taken some other aerial photos in mid 05, I've loaded them in the Wikimedia Commons area. Search Wikimedia Commons under file names, Image:Surfers Aerial1.JPG, Image:Surfers Aerial2.JPG, Image:Surfers Aerial3.JPG, Image:Bundall1.JPG. Feel free to view and upload /edit / photoshop if you wish. DB's pic is a good angle, maybe we can photoshop the colour balance etc Zassat 20:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice pix E-CBD --WikiCats 09:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi all, I am in the processing of editing my aerial shot of Surfers facing west. I will upload momentarily.DB 09:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the Sth-west aerial shot of Surfers with hinterland in distance - it is now lighter than the previous one I uploaded. ECBD i have moved your shot from Q1 to the recent history section.

DB the shot still has colour imbalance, try an edit with the Clone Brush in Photoshop or PSP along the colour differential line on the left. It should diffuse the line and make a big difference. Zassat 11:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Russ Hinze

I've written an article on Russ Hinze, I'm a bit to young to remember him, so if anyone else knows where to get more information go for it. E-CBD 01:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)E-CBD

Congratulations

Hi all, good job on the Gold Coast page. Your long, late night contributions to wikipedia has created what can now be considered a quality wikipedia article. Well done. DB 11:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

They have done fabulously, haven't they! --Randolph 17:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I think the article reads well and the people who have contributed photos have done a great job, the images really do convey the coast. Maybe some more hinterland information or pics could be included though E-CBD 05:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)E-CBD

Does anybody know what the deal with the coordinates below the map is? It looks like mumbo-jumbo and doesn't link anywhere... E-CBD 06:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)E-CBD

60.226.143.84 09:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Done DB.

Annette Kellerman

I'd like to lay claim to Annette Kellerman as a 'famous resident' of the Gold Coast. I don't think enough is written about this controversial and pioneering swimmer from Australia. What do you think? She spent the last years of her life here, and regularly went swimming the pool at the old Chevron Hotel in Surfers Paradise, until her death in 1975. --Randolph 17:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

For sure, I haven't heard of her, but I'm too young ;) If she had a movie made about her that's famous enough in my book E-CBD 05:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)E-CBD

It looks a bit strange having her under 'Notable Historical Figures'. Didn't we have a 'Famous Residents' section at one stage? --Randolph 22:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, technically she's no longer a resident, so I figured she was more of a historical figure. Do we really need a famous residents section though? I can't imagine Sydney putting up a list of 'famous residents', it kind of screams "we must be cool because these famous people live here". Who are we going to list anyway, Ugly Dave Grey? E-CBD 04:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)E-CBD

Eddie Kornhauser

Eddie was one of the Coast's pioneering property developers and was responsible for a lot of the skyline - I've listed him as a notable historical figure, but he needs his own article. I'll see if I can do it, but if I run out of time, it's out there as something to do... E-CBD 04:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)E-CBD

OK, well, I've written the Eddie Kornhauser article -

Main Page size issue

We are getting this message on editing of the main page 'This page is 35 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable'.

What can be moved to main article links?

What can we edit down?

Zassat 10:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I vote cut the Transport section (sorry to whoever contributed most of it, it's decent stuff but IMO too detailed in comparison to the rest of the article). I suggest condensing the car, train and canal paras into one and reducing the airport detail by half. Am I volunteering to do this myself? Well, no, but I think the locals are better-placed to do it justice (I'm a Sydney-sider who just happens to enjoy your fair city whenever I can visit). My 2 cents worth... Cheers Ian Rose 11:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't really find reading information on a stretch of road that invigorating. Perhaps this can be moved to the Pacific Motorway stub. Our privitised GC airport pic warrants a place in the article though! DB 11:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

There seems to have been a link created for History of the Gold Coast. Does not mean that most of the History section will be moved to there? --WikiCats 11:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree that the History section should either be moved to its own article or that link removed from the main article. My personal vote is the latter, as I think that the history part is not over-long and flows well within the main article. Ian Rose 11:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I've chopped out some headings from the history section, it seems weird to me to have a whole article on the history of the Gold Coast at this stage. The history gives a good overview of the place and its origins anyway, I think it flows well enough to stay in the main article. I'll do some chopping in the transport section. E-CBD 00:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)E-CBD

Suggest that the headings be removed within the History section in line with other featured articles layout as advised by cj above. I agree that Transport section could be reduced but keep Airport info.Zassat 19:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It appears consensus that History & Transport sections are to be cut. The Urban structure sub section seems to stray off the topic also. DB 11:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Transport section cleaned up. BrightLights 06:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Added sub heading Beaches, under Urban structure which disappeared in an edit sometime ago. Zassat 12:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I have added GCAC, and GCC&EC and references to Arts & Entertainment subsection. Also added stadiums and the turf club aspect to Sport and Recreation subsection. The layourt for each of these subsection are now neater and are easier to read. They should not require any further editing unless you have another item to add.

I have also used the bold and italics tactic to clean up the Media section amongst other minor issues such as spelling, syntax and links.

Also cleaned up health section. DB 14:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Good to see more varied content, but the bolding and inclusion of subheadings in Arts & Entertainment section does not appear to be inline with the format of the other suggested featured articles and Wikipedia Manual of Style. Suggest reverting your content to the previous paragraph type layout format as was done with some of the other subsections. Zassat 21:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

We are now at 38k. What should go or be truncated? Zassat 09:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The section about the airport contains more information than the article about the airport itself. Suggest moving most of this information to the airport article and leaving at most 3 or 4 sentences about the airport in the GC article. -- Adz|talk 22:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Commercial Links

For some reason this warning has been removed from External links section: DO NOT add commercial sites relating to ACCOMMODATION, HOLIDAYS, CAR RENTALs etc here. Such links will be REMOVED immediately, repeated attempts will result in a ban --WikiCats 10:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Removal of defamatory comments

I've removed the discussion of GoldCoastAustralia.com to User talk:E-CBD because personal and defamatory comments were being made and it was crowding up this page with useless flaming. If anyone wants to read, or contribute to the 'discussion' they can do so at: User talk:E-CBD

The comments made with relation to GoldCoastAsutralia.com were neither defamatory or personal. Please don't refer to my discussion as "Useless Flaming" as I have explained my side of this discussion clearly and have backed with (or can produce) factual evidence. The idea of a community discussion is that everyone has the opportunity to express his/her opinion or point of view. Your piers in this exact community have raised the same points in the past. Now because I have uncovered the truth, you have deemed this discussion "defamatory and useless flaming" and have removed the discussion. If you are truly interested in simply contributing to this community then you would happily remove the "link(s)" so this discussion could never be raised again by myself or other users. --Kedz 23:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow what a blow out, I have been watching the discussion between E-CBD and Kedz for the past couple of days, and what can I say? I just thought I would ask this because you both seem to have valid arguments, but surely you could settle these issues amicably. So lets look at the facts; GoldCoastAustralia.com is a very comprehensive local portal for the Gold Coast with a wealth of well written information for locals and visitors therefore you could say it is a benefit to a visitor visiting the Wikipedia directory.

On the other hand it does have a commercial purpose it does or did gain revenue from affiliate transactions whilst having a present link on Wikipedia, and I have also read the conditions of adding a link and it does state quite clearly that you are not to add website of a commercial nature and I am afraid to say that your site does have a commercial purpose. So my question to GoldCoastAustralia.com is - if you believe that you are entitled to this link from Wikipedia in the 'Non Commercial' External Links section, then are you willing to sacrifice your affiliate links from this site?

This would be a compromise between E-CBD and Kedz and should end this debate.

E-CBD, as it stands the internet is a big and wonderful place and there are many places you can add your website to gain decent link popularity without compromising integrity. And finally if you feel that you are entitled to list your site, then everyone that has a Gold Coast Directory or Portal should also add their links i.e www.goldcoastinfolink.com www.gold-coast.net www.goldcoast.i4u.com.au www.coastsearch.com.au and so on.

These are my thoughts on the whole issue your comments are welcomed cheers Paul Klerck www.info-link.com.au 16 February 2006

PS In closing Gold Coast Australia why have you moved all the previous discussion off of the main discussion page? Your comments or answers would be appreciated.

I'd moved the discussion because it was just clogging up the page, and I felt that there were comments, particularly about e-CBD's Pty Ltd's ethics and tactics which were defamatory - the issue here is GoldCoastAustralia.com, not e-CBD Pty Ltd. The discussion is still on the E-CBD talk page if you want to read it (refer to the first message in this section). I've admitted all along that there is a commercial element to the site, but the Wiki guidline is don't link to "Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services." My point is the site does not exist primarily to sell products or services. It's been a community portal since 1997, and happens to be capitalising on one aspect of its content. I think there is plenty of stuff there that's useful for Wikipedia users, but in the end everyone has a different interpretation of the guidelines and I'm sick of trying to fight for the link, so lets just leave it off. Hopefully this is case closed and we can delete this discussion and leave this page in peace! E-CBD 05:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)E-CBD

The Issue Of ECBD and External Links - Re Opened

Since having made my last contribution to this discussion, its good to see that everything is back to normal. ECBD have their goldcoastaustralia.com back in the external links section even though the last quote of the debate was "so lets just leave it off". Not only this, but a copy of the actual debate has been quietly removed from ECBD's wikipage which was meant to remain for those interested in what was going on.

As previously mentioned, I am not here to cause a nuisance, in fact quite the opposite. There were plenty of readers interested in the activities of the wikipedia members. Some agree and some don't. This is the nature of life and a democratic society.

Now following our previous conversation it has been brought to my attention that ECBD and the infamous ResOnline reservations software (Gold Coast based software used by approx 250 properties in queensland to handle online reservations and an accommodation affiliate model - www.resonline.com.au) are set to form a strategic partnership to promote online accommodation sales. If the previous debate was still available you would once again see that this strengthens my argument regarding goldcoastaustralia.com being an affiliate based website. Because of this I have removed the goldcoastaustralia.com link again from the External Links section based on wikipedias guidelines on linking to commercial sites. Or as Paul Klerck from InfoLink has suggested above, lets add other similar website such as http://www.goldcoastinfolink.com, http://goldcoast.i4u.com.au, http://www.gold-coast.net etc

It is also good to see that the Gold Coast Titans and Airport links have been removed. As you can well imagine, the local sports team the gold coast international airport certainly don't make as much of a contribution to the Gold Coast as ol Matty from ECBD. I hope you can detect the sarcasm in my voice. --Kedz 04:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Kedz, the goldcoastaustralia.com link was added back in by WikiCats, and I happen to agree with its inclusion. It is a useful resource which offers content over and above what Wikipedia can. As WikiCats mentions below (please read the comments at the bottom of the page), almost all sites have some sort of commercial component, the Wiki guidelines don't preclude sites that are commercial, they say that sites which are purely commercial shouldn't be added. I don't know who ECBD is, but in my (and WikiCats) opinion; goldcoastaustralia.com fits the criteria for being an external link (I can't see much commercial content on there anyway, and it certainly doesn't appear an affiliate accommodation directory, unlike the other sites you mention). If goldcoastaustralia.com becomes an affiliate portal in future it can be removed - I'll even make a note to keep an eye on it. To answer the other point you raise, The Titans and both Airport links have been removed as external links because they have their own Wikipedia articles and don't fit the criteria for a link from the Gold Coast, Queensland article.

Please do more investigation before you start removing content from Wikipedia, I might suggest that if you made an effort to do more for the Wikipedia community, rather than using your account solely to remove your competition's links , you might learn a little bit more about Wikipedia Ettiquette, and you're opinion will count for more. Triki-wiki 05:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Triki-Wiki

How many people do you have working out of your garage? Matt, who is WikiCat is that another another user operating from your garage? No one disputes Matts contribution, however it is easy to see thay you are very negative towards Kedz. Being bias towards e-cbd is very average when all Kedz said was that the site should not be listed if it contains affiliate links that generate revenu off od Wiki's back, do you dispute this? In regards to removing competition links that is a hog wash take a look at Very GC which sole purpose is top promote Gold Coast businesses and attractions.... however they now use an accommodation booking engine lets hope this is a free service they offer to their members and not double dipping...

I don't know who Matt is, I don't know who WikiCats is. I wasn't being negative towards Kedz, I was just pointing out that if we have to get an administrator in to sort this out, they're not going to give a lot of weight to comments from someone whose sole contribution has been to remove their competition's links. Very GC is basically a commercial site as well, but the content they offer is useful and above and what could be offered by Wikipedia, that's why it has an external link. Triki-wiki 05:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Triki-Wiki

Setting the record straight 1. As a Director of ResOnline i find it amazing that someone would call our product infamous? for what reason are we infamous? 2. With regards to the comment ECBD are set to form a strategic partnership I can only assume that the person that this has "been brought to the attention of" has NO idea and is using this medium for misleading your'e readers.

Fallacious Comments

Please let it be known that the individual submitting comments and signing off as PINK LEMONADE is in no way affiliated with Pink Lemonade Media, or with www.gold-coast-accommodation.on-holday.com.au. As a representative of Pink Lemonade Media I would like to request that the individual falsely posing as PINK LEMONADE please cease to do so immediately.

Initiation of Request for Comment in regards to goldcoastaustralia.com

Since this issue is clearly not going to go away, and since people continue to anonymously remove the link, I am going to put in a Request for Comment to Wikipedia admin as the first step in the dispute resolution process. My case for including a link to goldcoastaustralia.com in the external links section is as follows:

• The site has a number community message boards with a history of discussion on Gold Coast events and issues
• The site has a number of detailed interactive maps which no one is likely to try and re-produce copyright free for use as Wiki Commons
• The site offers a large number of informative articles on many facets of the Gold Coast
• While the site has some commercial accommodation affiliate links (I counted four in total) there are also plenty of other non-affiliate links and the site appears to be trying to do a genuine job of helping people find accommodation - albeit while making money on the side - I personally think the other content is useful enough to outweigh the commercial side of things.

I'm going to request comment from an administrator and hopefully that will solve the issue. If you disagree with me please put your comments here concisely and keep them related to the goldcoastaustralia.com - E-CBD, you might like to make a comment as well. Triki-wiki 06:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Triki-Wiki

I agree with Triki-wiki, but I'm staying out of it; I really don't care. I would only ask that people look objectively at goldcoastaustralia.com's worth as a website, and not bring e-CBD Pty Ltd (the publisher) into it, especially if they're going to publish false statements about our business. For the record, and I think this needs to be made clear, there are 1292 pages in goldcoastaustralia.com: one of those pages has four affiliate links on it, another page has two affiliate links (a ratio of one affiliate link for every 215 pages). We have no plans to add any more commercial links in the immediate, or distant future. E-CBD 07:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)E-CBD

• Why not have the link? I see an awful lot of other weblinks on WP that are more commercial, & it offers a lot of useful info on the area. As someone who has played the tourist on the Gold Coast, I find the site very useful & inviting, more so than the City Council site - which admittedly is very useful for locals so I'm not suggesting it's bad. My assumption is that the external links in geographical articles are there to amplify the WP article; and let's be honest, one of the reasons we Wiki our towns etc. is to promote them. I have no heartache with the proposed weblink, if they make a few bob as a result, good on them; if Gold Coast gets good press and more visitors, I'm assuming that is in your collective economic interest as well. Bridesmill 15:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Most sites have commercial links. It is a matter of balance as to whether a sites’ usefulness outweighs that commercial input. Gold Coast Australia provides useful content and should be included in External links. --WikiCats 14:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Folks; if this is an argument between VeryGC & GoldCoastAus, either they should both be *on* or both *off* - they may be making 'a little' money, but it's not off the back of anyone @WP unless you count the cost of storing a dozen bytes - & already more than that has been spent arguing about it. Plus the Gold Coast is going to get more benefit from people going to these two sites to plan their trip than what these two sites will get - by a long shot. Finally, as stated before, if either of these sites is disallowed on grounds of being too commercial, is this going to invoke a (shudder) censorship debate or result in a drive to remove literally thousands of similar sites off WP? Methinks going there is just not worth it. Bridesmill 16:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This debate has been raging for over 2 months now in different forms. It started based on exactly what has been mentioned above ... If one of these affiliate based sites should be involved, then they all should. It is that simple! As ECBD (goldcoastaustralia.com) was the "main remover" of commercial links, it didn't seem fair that they should have their own and remove "the competition" as has been raised. Add them all or have none, and maybe once we get past this point we can all continue with more beneficial contributions to this site.

To satisfy the "Add them all" part of this, I have added the following links to the External Links section of the Gold Coast page -

http://www.goldcoastinfolink.com, http://goldcoast.i4u.com.au, http://www.gold-coast.net, http://www.gold-coast-accommodation.on-holday.com.au

All of these sites are useful sites and would certainly be beneficial for users planning a trip to the Gold Coast. If ECBD or Trikiwiki(from ECBD) don't remove these links then we can all get on with life. -- Kedz

Kedz, my interest is in making this Wikpedia article as useful as possible, within the guidelines set. Quite frankly I'm getting tired of your assumptions on who people are. Some people contribute to Wikipedia without any commercial interest - I'm one of them. I live on the Gold Coast and I take pride in this article. In my opinion the links you've added don't offer content that is so unique it can't be included on Wikipedia, they're also highly commercial. If you think they should be linked to, you should outline your reasons why on this talk page, and make sure you address the criteria (simply saying, 'they're useful' isn't good enough). If you can't make a case for them to be linked, someone else will come along and get rid of them anyway. Triki-wiki 01:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Triki-wiki

http://goldcoast.i4u.com.au, thumbs down

http://www.gold-coast.net, thumbs down

http://www.gold-coast-accommodation.on-hol(added an i to make it work)day.com.au thumbs down

http://www.goldcoastinfolink.com ish

goldcoastaustralia and very gc - useful

That's my forner canajun eh impression of what I would find useful in planning a trip, and how 'commercialized' the sites make me feel - main reason for the thumbs down, if what my focus was accoms, I'd use either expedia or just phone up or use the travel agent (still usually the cheapest). Bridesmill 01:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Here are my comments below on this issue.. --Randolph 02:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

http://goldcoast.i4u.com.au (Too commercial looking, advertising is very prominent on the index page. The accomodation booking service is the most obvious and prominent feature of the site. Finding where to go to get information on the Gold Coast that has some relevance to wikipedia is not obvious. I think out of any of the choices though, this comes closest to be an 'alternative' from the standpoint of it at least being a good quality website presented in a readable form. What it lacks is an opening statement that would guide the reader to the services, rather than just the links section at the top of the page.)

http://www.gold-coast.net (Again too commercial looking and advertising is too prominent. Again accomodation booking is far to prominent to consider it as useful to the wikipedia article. Personally I think this site is just ugly to look at, because it consists of all advertising on the index page. I wouldn't even want to consider this one because it is an awful website design.)

http://www.gold-coast-accommodation.on-holiday.com.au (Better design, not as commericial looking (no ads on index page) BUT again too accomodation orientated. In particular on this site, there are no obvious links to resources that would satify a criteria of being extra information not found in the wikipedia article or other Gold Coast related wikipedia articles. If I was to browse to this site, my first thought would be what am I doing at an accomodation website?)

http://www.goldcoastaustralia.com/ (This site is well designed, looks good, and does have some good information ie Aboriginal history, virtual tours showing aerial views of different parts of the Gold Coast on it and these link are shown in the opening paragraph of the index page. I would be hard pressed to find the advertising on this page. It's at the bottom of the page. The lack of 'flashy' advertising banners make this page easier to read and to easier to get to the information I want.)

The thing that stands out to me is that none of the so called 'alternatives' to http://www.goldcoastaustralia.com/ are really alternatives at all. The only commonality between the alternatives is that they all offer accomodation booking services, as does http://www.goldcoastaustralia.com/ , but fail on the criteria of having easily recognisable links to further information pertaining to the Gold Coast wikipedia article. In addition all the alternatives feature advertisements prominently on their index pages. As I have already mentioned http://www.goldcoastaustralia.com/ you are hard pressed to find an ad on the first page.

I have only done a simple evaluation of the merits of these sites, but I believe that is all that is necessary. As it's what is presented on the index page of each of these web pages that really matters. If I need a microscope to examine the page in detail to find out where to go to AVOID having to look at accomodation booking information, then the site is not in my opinion worthwile including as an external link. I believe we should simply stick with the one link and leave the others out. I don't think being 'fair' to competing accomodations service is the issue in this discussion. The issue is what is useful to the article. I can agree to a goldcoastaustralia.com being included because of the quality and presentation of the website and it does provide some additional information that is presented in a format that is less commerical in appearance than the others mentioned. As a final note, if it ends up being such a time consuming process to deal with these types of trivial arguments over commercial links in the external links section, then I would prefer to have NO commercial links in the external links section. At least then we can get on with making a wikipedia article about the Gold Coast instead of being mired in what is essentially a lot of hair splitting over a website link that has limited value on the page. --Randolph 02:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Randolph, Bridesmill, Wikicats and Triki-wiki (none of whom work from e-CBD's 'garage' as one anonymous person incorrectly speculated). I would really like Kedz to respond and justify why the other sites should be linked, since he/she is the only one with a Wikipedia login who has a problem with Gold Coast Australia.com. I think the link to Gold Coast Australia.com should stay, but I agree that this whole argument is wasting everyone's time. However, I do think it would be a shame to lose a good link simply because one wiki user (I use the term 'user' broadly; the only contribution Kedz has ever made to Wikipedia is to fiddle with the external links section of this article and complain about Gold Coast Australia.com) has a problem. Kedz, please respond with justification of why you think the other sites should be linked to, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, or I think you've lost your case. E-CBD 09:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)E-CBD

I agree. I'm getting really quite sick of this "Gold Coast Australia" bashing. The consensus seems to be in favor of it, so it stays. --WikiCats 10:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

We seem to have no further comments on this matter. I'm going to be editing out the links that are too commercial. --Randolph 14:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You guys are so full of it Gold Coast Australia is so full of affiliate links it is nothing more than a camo disguised affiliate directory I believe that goldcoast.i4u.com.au looks heaps better and delivers relevant content, it's obvious that all the comments made by these other wackers comes from the mouths of biased opinions probably Gold Coast Australia's affiliate revenue gatherers. You all need to grow up and stop the back bitting and stop using Wiki as a personal battle ground. If Gold Coast Australia had any type of genuine integrity they would replace their affiliate directory with a website that was purely Gold Coast Information based, but they will never do this because Matt and Old Mazza are second rate operators that get smashed down the search engines constantly so they just love slagging everyone else off. Your all pathetic...

Is Anyone Willing Enough?

Found out where I can get past information on Gold Coast Mayors. If anyone is going to this place anytime soon, could you maybe ask for info on this? The place is at the Local Studies Library Level 1, Cnr Garden and Lawson Streets, Southport 4215. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.181.120 (talk)

Opening hours are here if anybody is interested. The staff were helpful last time I went up there. Jammo (SM247) 04:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Local Culture

Language

Even though I live in Brisbane, I've heard that the young people on the Gold Coast in their teens and early twenties have a stack of words they use which have their own distinct meanings within the Gold Coast area - almost like a separate dialect of English. Now, I know that to some extent this is true of all children as they invent new fads in one form or another, but surely that's a reason for ALL city WP pages to feature their own dialects rather than a reason for omitting them from the GC page - especially if the "Coast" language is as distinctive as I've heard.

One well known example is "toolies", which means "too old for schoolies". This refers to a small minority of males aged over 23 who visit the Gold Coast during Schoolies Week driven by the fantasy of picking up 18 year old girls for sex. The rejection they inevitably face is for the reason that they are (by a long shot) too old for schoolies - hence the slang term. There are reputedly many more such slang terms peculiar to the Gold Coast. Can some Coast-speaking kids confirm this rumour and supply some dictionary definitions? (And improve my own definition if it's wrong.)

I was of the understanding that the word Toolies was derived from them being 'tools' in the stupid idiot sense of the word. I moved to the Gold Coast in grade ten, but I was never aware that there was a local lingo, as opposed to just general Queenslandisms common throughout at least the southeast corner of the state. Triki-wiki 23:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Triki-wiki

To my knowledge it is not local, as Schoolies itself is not a local only phenomenon, just that ours is the most well-known (and notorious). I can't say I know of any particularly unique slang terms other than universally accepted and used local shorthand for place names e.g. 'Pac' Fair, Surfers, Mermaid, Burleigh etc. Jammo (SM247) 04:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

There is really no local lingo except for the above Pac Fair and other shorthands. You might occasionally get a saying created by high school students (like the "Domo" saying that was going around a while ago) but other than that there wouldn't be much else. Most sayings are usually Queensland or Australian lingo anyway. --Aussieprince 02:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay then, this must have been just a fanciful rumour made up by confused grannies. Consider it a myth - busted!

Droolies is a toolies derived term to refer to the younger kids that hang round during schoolies.

Expanded Infrastructure, Future projects/ Future Development / High rise buildings

i feel that the future projects section is in need of its own page so its possible to go into greater detail about the projects without overcrouding the main page anymore. Also there is no talk about high rises on the gold coast on the main page. i believe there should a Category Buildings and structures on the Gold Coast (going to talk on the building and structers section about that) and new page which talks about high rises on the gold coast including history of high rises on the coast and a table of all the buildings hights. (sorry about my bad editing earlier i put a Edit summary this time) L blue l 02:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

i have made a Buildings and structures on the Gold Coast Category and in the prosses of adding buidings L blue l 04:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Shopping Centers

how about a short thing on Shopping Centers L blue l 05:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

How about you learn to spell centres! Triki-wiki 23:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Triki-wiki

Be Bold. You will find a lot of relevant links here Category:Shopping centres in Queensland --WikiCats 10:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

woops i didnt explain myself there verywell but want i ment was a summary of the shopping centres on the main page. L blue l 07:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

First Paragraph

There've been a lot of changes of late to the lead section of the article and most of them aren't in accordance with the useful guidelines set out in the Wikipedia:Lead_Section article. In particular:

The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible, and consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article (see news style and summary style). The first sentence in the lead section should be a concise definition of the topic unless that definition is implied by the title (such as 'History of …' and similar titles).::

The article is about Gold Coast City, not 'the Gold Coast'. I tried to clear that up with an edit but someone anonymous doesn't agree. Parts of Beaudesert (such as Mount Tamborine and other hinterland areas) are generally referred to as being in The Gold Coast region so I thought I'd make that clear in the. Perhaps this article needs some further clarification somewhere about the fact that it's about Gold Coast City, not 'the Gold Coast' as people know it... Feedback anyone? Triki-wiki 23:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Triki-wiki

_______________________

1. There is no refernce to "Gold Coast City" in any literature on this topic, it is simply "Gold Coast". It is common for people to refer to Gold Coast as "the Gold Coast", "Goldy" or simply "the Coast". If you refer to the history of Gold Coast, Queensland article, "the Gold Coast" was originally a descrpitive term generally used by commentators during the town's formative years under adminstration of the South Coast Town Council. The "nicknames" should be included in the lead section, as it offers the reader some local knowledge, which is in any case more pertinant to the standard of the article, merely than the purpose of being brief.

All offical documentation, especially from the Gold Caost City Council refers to Gold Coast City, and it is mentioned throughhout the article. Triki-wiki 23:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Triki-wiki

2.a. You have previously mentioned that this article is on Gold Coast City, however the lead states "Tweed Heads and sections of Beaudesert are also commonly referred to as "The Gold Coast". Not only is this a total contradiction in itself, this statement is specious as it is reliant on subjectivism and is factually incorrect (i.e not based on administrative boundaries).

Whether it is even relevent to this article, particularly the lead, it may be more accurate to describe "sections of Beudesert Shire and Tweed Shire", for instance Mt. Tamborine and Cabarita, as a "getaway" or holiday destination for Gold Coast locals, rather than it actually being regarded as part of Gold Coast.

The section reads: "Tweed Heads and sections of Beaudesert are also commonly referred to as being a part of 'The Gold Coast' region". It's not a contradiction. The statistical boundaries of Gold Coast City don't cover everything that is commonly referred to as the Gold Coast, like the Gold Coast Hinterland for example. Triki-wiki 23:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Triki-wiki

2.b The lead section in it's current form has alot of gaps. Whilst the reader might assume that it is a "coastal city", due to connotation associated with the name, mention of the surrounding water areas should be stated, that is, Moreton Bay, Pacific Ocean and even perhaps Nerang River. The fact that the city boasts over 9 times more waterways than Veniceis a pretty amazing fact which would stand out to readers and keep them interested.

"The city is renowned for its sunny subtropical climate, world-class beaches, waterfront properties..." — I think that gets the message across, and there's that word 'Coast' in the name. This is an encyclopedia, not a travel article. The objective is not to 'get people interested'. Triki-wiki 23:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Triki-wiki

3. Further on the lead section in current form, it is centred on describing geographical boundaries (being subjective boundaries which has been previously addressed in point 2.a) and tends to direct readers become more involved in trying to understand where the surrounding areas are, rather than keeping them focused on Gold Coast. It draws from the soul of the article and tends to direct readers to click on Beenleigh links of Tweed links etc.

I think it's a bit clinical, but it's still an encyclopedia article not a magazine. Triki-wiki 23:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Triki-wiki

4. Without begrudging the "good faith" Wikipedia doctrine, is Lamington National Park actually World Heritage Listed? This should be removed if support for this cannot be supplied.

Without begrudging your ability to actually read the article, you might like to follow the link to the first reference cited in the reference section (http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/368), or perhaps the Lamington National Park article itself. Triki-wiki 23:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Triki-wiki

5. Currently the lead section creates ambiguity and creates more questions for the reader, and as such, the lead section should revert to this form, at least a skeleton, as it offers more fundamental information about Gold Coast and allows readers to ease into the remainder of the article. 60.226.159.85 12:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, that actually reads reasonably well, but it goes against the lead section guidelines. If you want to mention stuff in the lead section because you think it's so important, put that content in the main article first. The lead section is supposed to be a concise summary of the article — not a tourism brochure. If you care so much, you might also like to get yourself a Wikipedia username, people will take you more seriously then! Triki-wiki 23:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Triki-wiki

Do you think the article should be moved to Gold Coast City? --WikiCats 08:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a tough one, because there is an unnoffical Gold Coast region and a Gold Coast City and they are slightly different. Eg. Tropical Fruit World near Murwillumbah describes themselves as being a Gold Coast tourist attraction and places like Kingscliff and Mt Tamborine are Very GC without actually being in Gold Coast City. I don't know what to do. Triki-wiki 23:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Triki-wiki

This article is most definitely about Gold Coast City. Maybe there should an article called Gold Coast region which takes in Gold Coast City and part of Tweed such as Salt etc. Such as: "The Gold Coast region is the unoficial ..." --WikiCats 01:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea — I'll write it when I have a spare moment, or of course anyone else feel free to... Triki-wiki 01:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Triki-wiki

I think the title would be Gold Coast Region. Then we could think about moving this article to Gold Coast City --WikiCats 13:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Gold Coast?

Just looking around, all the capital cities and Geelong have a project page - given the size of the Coast and the proliferation of articles, might it be time to start one here? Just a suggestion, as some Gold Coast based users and/or admins might be able to put some time into it. I'll help out. Jammo (SM247) 06:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Made it last night. See WP Australia infobox above. -- Punk Boi 8 23:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination Failed

• This article does not meet criterion 2, especially 2b, of WP:WIAGA, regarding verifiability of facts and use of inline citations.
• If you feel this assessment was incorrect or improper, please list your article on Good Article Review for further consideration.
• --Ling.Nut 02:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Lifestyle

There are no Queensland State laws legislating specifically against wowen being topless on public beaches. Under Section 9 of the Summary Offences Act of 2005 it is illegal to wilfully expose your genitals in public without a reasonable excuse. The clause pertaining to "Wilful Exposure" makes nil reference to exposure of female breasts in a public place. Zassat 21:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. That's an important point that you bring up. I think the section on lifestyle needs a bit of a rewrite, as the parts pertaining to topless bathing seem to take the lifestyle section off on an unnecessary tangent. --Randolph 23:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that balance needs to be added, to include lifestyles choices that are available over a wider age demographic and the activites that are found with a focus on what is unique to this area. Beach culture and displayed behaviours are very important as this is the predominant unique drawcard to the area. I believe that there also needs to be balance added to show both positive and not so positive elements to the lifestyle and environment of this fast growing area.Zassat 10:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I have spent a bit of time changing the layout and adding some additional headings and sub-headings. I have edited and did a minor rewrite of Lifestyle, I agree that it wasn't balanced. I'll continue to add bits and pieces when I have time. I have spent many years in and around this great area, I'll hope to more details to add soon.Zassat 21:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to be deleting stuff, but the whole lifestyle section really wasn't a good overview of what the Gold Coast lifestyle really is - an short essay on topless laws on the beach just isn't good enough. There should be a lifestyle section, but I think we should work out what goes in it before just writing a fraction of information on one fairly irrelevant aspect of local culture. E-CBD 05:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)E-CBD

I agree that there needs to be more balance and relevance to a Lifestyle Section, in the "Pending Tasks" above I have added a section asking for suggested content for this heading.Zassat 21:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

There are local regulations prohibiting topless bathing on Gold Coast beaches.

• Comment Section 6 is more than wide enough to cover topless bathing as it would only be prohibited if it were considered a public nuisance. s 6(2)(a)(ii) and (b) are probably met by a case of nudity on a public beach. I don't know about s 9's mention of genitals, there is no further definition of them in Schedule 2 (the dictionary) and often normally clearly understood words are extended beyond their normal meaning by statutes to have a specific meaning. SM247^{My Talk} 07:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

How to suggest an external link

Because the Gold Coast is a tourist area there are plenty of online guides and directories for the region. Naturally webmasters want a link from Wikipedia because it's good for search engine ranking, and traffic, but there are very clear guidelines on what should and should not be linked to. You can read the article here: External_links. It's important to note that Wikipedia is not a web directory, but adding a certain number of external links is a valuable service to readers. Sites should only be linked if they contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article, or if they have other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews (and perhaps maps and virtual tours and other content which shows what the Gold Coast is like). A particularly useful guideline is that sites should not be added by people that own or maintain them (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article). If it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article. There are a number of enthusiastic contributors to the Gold Coast article with distingushed editing histories who check this article every other day; if you have an idea for a useful external link, it will get noticed and discussed quickly. The way to get a link is to put it up for discussion here, not anonymously add it without explanation and without reading the guidelines. E-CBD 06:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)E-CBD

Most sites have commercial links. It is a matter of balance as to whether a sites’ usefulness outweighs that commercial input. Gold Coast Australia provides useful content and should be included in External links. --WikiCats 04:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you WikiCats, but I think we (as in contributors with an interest in the Gold Coast who aren't just you and me) should do a bit of a review of the external links section. It is starting to look more like a directory, rather than a list of essential Gold Coast sites which offer the kind of useful information that Wikipedia can't. I don't know if the Titans Rugby League team makes the cut, or the two airport websites. Sure, they should be linked from the official articles on those topics, but I don't think they should be links from the main Gold Coast article... Feedback? E-CBD 03:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)E-CBD

I don't think the Titans, or the Airports should be external links - they all have their own articles which have the official sites linked appropriately, and this Gold Coast article links to those articles. If no-one objects I'll remove them. Triki-wiki 23:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Triki-wiki

Be bold. --WikiCats 11:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add the following website Discover Queensland to the external websites section of the Gold Coast Wiki page. The website boasts no banner or commercial advertising at all but does follow suite to all other sites listed above regarding commission for referal accommodation. The website is well designed and provides good general information to the user about the Gold Coast. --DQ 04:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

In this article regarding how to suggest a link I have followed the process to include the Discover Queensland website and am still waiting patiently for my request to get noticed and discussed. Being that it is nearly the end of december and the request was made on the 3rd of October I would have thought there would be some relevant feedback by now. So much for following the process!!! DQ 19:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Beach info recently added

I've removed the recently added info as I can't seem to find any references of this. If someone can find the sources for the information that was recently added (and moved to here), then feel free to move it back to the main article.

Below is the recently deleted text from the beaches section. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 10:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"Gold Coast Beaches have experienced periods of severe beach erosion. In 1967 a series of 11 cyclones removed most of the sand from Gold Coast beaches. The Government of Queensland engaged engineers from Delft University in Holland to advise what to do about the beach erosion. The Delft Report was published in 1971 and outlined a series of works for Gold Coast Beaches including Gold Coast Seaway , works at Narrowneck that resulted in the Northern Gold Coast Beach Protection Strategy and works at the Tweed River that became the Tweed River Entrance Sand Bypassing Project. By 2005 most of the recommendations of the 1971 Delft Report had been implemented. The Gold Coast City Council commenced implementation of the Palm Beach, Protection Strategy but ran into considerable opposition from the community participating in a NO REEF protest campaign . The Gold Coast City Council then committed to completing a review of beach management practices to update the Delft Report. The Gold Coast Shoreline Management Plan will be delivered by a range of organisations including the EPA, Queensland and the Griffith University Centre for Coastal Management."

• I would suggest having a look at Geoff Burchill's book on the development and general history of the Gold Coast, I remember something about this in there in his first hand accounts of the weather of the period. It would also be a good general reference for patching up some holes in the history and providing proper sources. SM247^{My Talk} 09:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I added some references to the old text above and copied this back into the article. I am not an experienced Wiki person so this is probably not the right way of doing it. Sorry if this has caused a problem. GuestGC 5th Jan 2007 203.3.64.1 01:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

GA review: article on HOLD

hello,

If I pass the article as GA, will you buy me tickets to go to Gold Coast? :-) It looks/sounds like a wonderland.

I put many {{fact}} tags on the article. Note that for some... here I'm specifically thinking of a few references to "World heritage" sites... there doesn't have to be a ref for each mention of a particular world heritage site, but if there are more than one such sites discussed in the article, each should rec'v a ref somewhere. If I tagged one that is ref'd somewhere, just remove the tag and say something in the edit summary about it.

The recreation section has a "merge" tag on it. This question should be resolved; I don't think the article is stable otherwise (see WP:WIAGA). Within that section, it's looking borderline kinda listy. It's a judgment call, since each particular sport/recreation or whatever actually does have a sentence or two.

Drop me a line if you have q's. I'm gonna put this article on HOLD for one week. --Ling.Nut 19:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, if I understood a recent edit summary correctly, some {{fact}} tags were removed because the relevant information was fully cited in an article to which this article links. I don't believe that's the way to look at this question. Every article should stand on its own. If I put a tag on a fact that is referenced in a nearby sentence, please go ahead and remove that tag, with an appropriate edit summary. But facts on this article should be cited on this article.

Please feel free to ask if you have any questions.

--Ling.Nut 14:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted some of the tags, and left some on there. Some of the references are under external links, and some of the history are referenced in the sub-article. It is currently not referenced through Wikipedia's reference tags, which a GC local to the article should be doing. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 14:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment on the history section. Ling.Nut is correct about the article being able to stand on its own. You mentioned that the assertions are referenced in the sub-article, which I assume that means that this is referenced in the History of Gold Coast, Queensland. However, our citation guidelines and reliable sources guideline note that the Wikipedia articles should not be cited as sources as they are not reliable as the articles can change over time. For example, the clause "...with some archaelogical evidence suggesting their custodianship of the land extended back 23,000 years" should be cited. This assertion is not even cited in the History of Gold Coast, Queensland article. Our verifiability policy, states that, "editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed". We encourage all editors to cite their sources not only to conform to the Good article criteria, but also, above all, to conform to Wikipedia policy. --RelHistBuff 11:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

PS If a detail that should be referenced is in fact something found in an HTML document linked to within the references section, there should be some way of matching the detail to the reference. This could either be a embedded html link, or the hyperlink in the references section could instead be contained within the footnote, as in "Mary Smith was a nice person<ref>[http:marysmithbio.com ''Biography of Mary Smith'']. Retrieved November 28 2006.</ref>. I suppose it can be a bit of trouble, but really it's not difficult once you get the hang of it. Feel free to drop me a line if you have questions.--Ling.Nut 16:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, OK, I'm going to work on these points then. I've already fixed up some of the citations in the History of Gold Coast, Queensland article. Triki-wiki 02:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Triki-wiki

Infobox picture caption

I have removed the caption ("Beautiful one day, perfect the next") from the image in the infobox up the top because it is irrelevant to the Gold Coast (being a whole-of-Queensland tourism tagline) and, without quotes, probably constitutes a violation of the intellectual property of the Queensland tourism authorities. - Mark 07:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Population

Populations statistics are available here ABS Statistics for Gold Coast B if anyone knows how to make sense of them. --Randolph 19:36, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are no demographics available on this page, maybe somebody could add some. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.93.2 (talk) 05:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Tourism statistics

The Gold Coast (according to the Tourism Research Australia website) is showing closer to 4.3million visitors staying overnight and not the stated 3.3million which this website has currently. This following website has the information for referencing if you wish to look :)

http://www.tra.australia.com/domestic.asp?sub=0034 This site has the information for each quarter and each year for the last6 or 7 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.14.81.49 (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

White Shoe Brigade

Thinking of language and culture, I'm surprised that there's no mention of The White Shoe Brigade, the building developers and business people who made the Gold Coast the place it is. Millbanks (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Infobox location

From the infobox:

• 19 km (12 mi) S of Surfers Paradise
• 13 km (8 mi) WNW of Coolangatta

This seems weird to me. Aren't Surfers and Coolangatta both part of the Gold Coast? Digestible (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Since no justification has been made for their inclusion, I have removed these entries. Digestible (talk) 14:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Expansion of Climate section

Hi all, given the recent high winds and storm activity we have experienced, perhaps we should add something about the 1974 Floods and the 2005 floods in the climate section. Does anyone have any good sources in this regard? DB 01:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Try http://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/t_standard2.aspx?pid=2762 for some details of 1974 floods. Also http://www.bom.gov.au/hydro/flood/qld/brochures/south_coast/nerang.pdfZassat 11:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The climate data differ from that on the Australian Bureau of Meteorology website. In particular, the summer mean maximum temperature for January given here (35.6 C) seems several degrees too high. What is the source of this figure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.192.251 (talk) 03:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Figures have been corrected. Bidgee (talk) 04:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Radio stations

Is there a reason the radio stations link to external sites rather than their wiki pages? For example, the wiki page for 90.9 Sea FM is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/90.9_Sea_FM, and the page for 107.3 Life FM is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_FM_%28Gold_Coast%29. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.37.161 (talk) 11:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Population in Infobox

I have an issue with the use of rubbery Estimated Population figures in the infobox. Shouldn't this be reserved for official Census figures only as per most other cities in Australia ? At least that is until the next census in 2011 results are published. --Biatch (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This was vandalised today. Now back to 2006 figure for the time being (Crusoe8181 (talk) 04:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)).

If you say it is a city, does that make it a city?

If this is a city, so is Bedfordshire, which has a larger population in a smaller area, and probably a similar distribution of settlements. But if Bedfordshire tried to pass itself off as a city, everyone in England would roll about on the floor laughing. I don't know how to say this in the article in a neutral way, but people from some countries (including all of Europe I should think), are going to get the wrong idea about what sort of place this is if they don't read the article very carefully, so I think something needs to be said. This "city" has a lower population density that England as a whole and England is mainly rural. A city in the sense of a single continuous urban settlement it is not.Twittenham 00:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It IS a continuous and centralised urban area though (in a way that, say, the Central Coast isn't), AND it calls itself Gold Coast City. Bedfordshire isn't, and doesn't. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 00:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I really don't know what point you are trying to make, Twittenham. City is not a term of art - it is a designation used by the local government (the Gold Coast City Council), and in the context of Australia, a fairly apt one as it is Australia's 6th or 7th largest conurbation or urban area (depending on whose figures you trust). All Australian cities have lower population densities than in Europe. Are you trying to say Sydney is not a city, or that only the Sydney CBD is one? With regards to the Gold Coast, look at Surfers Paradise alone for a start. The fact that Australia has low population density is meaningless to the categorisation of a place as a city, as Australia is largely uninhabited. Australia has a more heavily urbanised population than most developed countries, too. SM247^{My Talk} 01:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This may be worth adding to the Cities in Australia article. I believe the designation of "city" is a state based one. We should note in that article what differentiates a city and a municipality (or shire, etc) in each state. -- Chuq 03:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the City article spells out the definition quite nicely. The land area of Gold Coast City and its population are also clearly labelled in case there's any confusion. Triki-wiki 23:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)Triki-wiki

As far as I can tell, this article is about the urban area of the Gold Coast. Whilst this page states that it refers to the city, there is another page about the 'Gold Coast City' which is an LGA. The figures for this page, seem to show that this area is slightly larger than 'Gold Coast City', and has a slightly higher population, which seems to suggest that this page isn't really about a 'city', but an urban area. To be honest, calling LGAs 'cities', and also calling what other countries might call cities 'cities' is insanely confusing. Maybe the first paragraph should be ammended to say that it is an urban area rather than a city? VanillaBear23 (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Twittenham and VanillaBear23; this page is about an urban area that represents itself as a city. That's great and all, but I really feel that this difference should be explained in the article. The article keeps talking about 'the city this', 'the city that', etc. but in other parts of the article, it refers to Gold Coast as a region (adding 'The' to Gold Coast results in 'The Gold Coast', which, to me, seems not a propriate way to refer to a city, I mean, one wouldn't say 'The Sydney is the largest city of Australia', it's 'Sydney is...'). So why not the explanation that Gold Coast started out as an urbanised area, and would later represent itself as a city? Anyhow, at this moment, this article is really confusing. Robster1983 (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

New Pictures Needed?

As the Gold Coast Skyline rapidly grows faster than any other Australian city, perhaps we need new pictures. I've noticed that some of these pictures dates 2006. There has been massive amount of development since then with a few 200m+ buildings under constructions right now. YuMaNuMa (talk) 11:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Photo in info box.

I have noticed there has been a lot of to and fro regarding the photograph in the info box. I have changed it back to "Gold Coast,QLD.jpg". This is clearly a much higher quality photo. The alternate that some anons have been changing it to is poor quality, very hazy, and not representative of the coast skyline. If anyone wants to comment, please look at both photos first to see what I mean.--Dmol (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Origin of the name "Gold Coast"

My sources say that the term Gold Coast was first introduced by a Courier-Mail columnist complaining about a sudden and significant over-night price hike in the cost of Ice Cream there, something he would regularly enjoy on trips there with family. Apparently he teased that it's not the "south coast" any more, but it's the "gold coast" because you had to be made of "Gold" to live there...or to go there or something. Unfortunately I don't know his name and don't know when this column was written.

Can someone confirm this, and what was his name? Certainly I think information on the Coast's namesake should be included. Eno1 09:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I can confirm that I have heard a similar story when I was doing some research on the Gold Coast suburbs. I might have even included a mention of it in the Surfers Paradise history section. The only information that I had though, was that the term 'Gold Coast' was coined by journalists. The above story sounds more specific and it would be interesting to enquire further along that line. --Randolph 16:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the Gold Coast began being referred to as such by property developers in the late 40s but it's unclear about whether they took the name from newspapers, or vice versa. I'll email the local history library and see if they know. E-CBD 05:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)E-CBD

OK, I phoned the local studies librarian at the Gold Coast library and she said to confirm the 'Courier Mail ice cream theory' you'd have to go through every newspaper from about 1945 to 1949 and look for the particular column. The general consensus is that newspapers were referring to the Gold Coast in the late 1940s, and so were developers, but no one seems to know who came up with the idea first, and unless someone around at the time can remember, we might not ever know. E-CBD 06:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)E-CBD

Just checking back on this talk page now, good to see such interest. To be more precise about "My sources", it's actually someone with some first-hand knowledge, that is they were (very) directly connected with the paper at the time, being also very familiar with the Brisbane of the day. He/She says that this is actually the way the name gold coast came about, and mentioned that most people think it came about some other how, but that I forget. Also they said that part of the story is that businesses started to use "Gold Coast" in their name.

This person does know the name of this columnist which they did tell me but being me I just forget names or dates. I had hoped that someone else would follow this up, but if I do speak to this person I'll try and get some details, though do note that I may not do so for an extensive period of time, or longer, so all the better if you confirm any of this before I do, if I ever do that is. I admit I'm not highly educated about these things, but I'm nonetheless interested to see where this goes. Eno1 12:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I am from Spain and the name Gold Coast and the development of that area remembers me what happened in Spain: Sunshine Coast (Costa del Sol), Brave Coast (Costa Brava)....and above all Benidorm in the White Coast (Costa Blanca) Australia has the advantage of an even larger Coast than Spain so you can have both concrete and wild beaches without almost construction. There is space enough for both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.147.235.193 (talk) 03:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've trawled the Courier-Mail through the 1940s but cannot find a reference to Gold Coast that relates to this area (all the references are to the Gold Coast in Africa and to a racehorse by that name). I found nothing in 1950, but in 1951 I find 5 mentions (from earliest to latest):

• "DAY by DAY". The Courier-Mail (Brisbane, Qld. : 1933 - 1954). Brisbane, Qld.: National Library of Australia. 28 August 1951. p. 1. Retrieved 22 February 2013.
• "DAY by DAY". The Courier-Mail (Brisbane, Qld. : 1933 - 1954). Brisbane, Qld.: National Library of Australia. 14 November 1951. p. 1. Retrieved 22 February 2013.
• "DAY by DAY". The Courier-Mail (Brisbane, Qld. : 1933 - 1954). Brisbane, Qld.: National Library of Australia. 22 November 1951. p. 1. Retrieved 22 February 2013.
• "'Can get it-at a price'". The Courier-Mail (Brisbane, Qld. : 1933 - 1954). Brisbane, Qld.: National Library of Australia. 26 December 1951. p. 1. Retrieved 22 February 2013.
• ""Gold Coast" jinks". The Courier-Mail (Brisbane, Qld. : 1933 - 1954). Brisbane, Qld.: National Library of Australia. 29 December 1951. p. 3. Retrieved 22 February 2013.

Of course, there may be earlier references in other newspapers, but that's what I managed to find. From this, it looks like the writer of the Day-by-Day column probably deserves the credit for introducing the name. I think the 4th one "Can get it at a price" is probably the article being referred to above, but, if so, it is not the first. Kerry (talk) 07:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

---

merge Gold Coast, Queensland and Gold Coast City

I would like to propose merging these two articles. From reading some old commentary above on this topic, the objection previously is that some people use the term "Gold Coast" to include other geographic areas than those of the local government authority. Places like Tropical Fruit World probably have a commercial reason to describe themselves as a "Gold Coast attraction" because Gold Coast is more of a tourist magnet than Tweed Shire (where Tropical Fruit World is actually located). It seems to me that allowing some people's inaccurate use of the place name to keep these articles separate would be given these minority opinions "undue weight". If we merged the two articles, we could include a comment that some people may use the term "Gold Coast" to refer to areas nearby but outside of the official local government boundaries, notably some of the adjacent areas of Northern New South Wales (which is of course true of many local government areas, not just Gold Coast). Kerry (talk) 09:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

In a verbal discussion User:WikiCats indicated his objection to the merger. He says the confusion between the roles of two articles would be reduced if Gold Coast City went back to its original name (which I think he said was Gold Coast City Council). Certainly when you read the page, it is strongly oriented towards a description of the Council. I agree that separate articles for the place and the organisation would make sense. How does this alternative sound to people? Kerry (talk) 01:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Consensus: any opposition to this photo?

Does anyone have any opposition towards using this as the main infobox photo? It's more recent than the current one and shows a more complete panoramic view of the skyline.

58.170.122.143 (talk) 11:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I like it. Higher resolution, includes the beach, and a more 'natural' looking photograph IMO. Harryboyles 12:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it's a very nice photo. How many votes do you advise I should receive until it replaces the current one? 58.170.122.143 (talk) 09:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

We don't need votes see WP:BOLD (meaning just do it and see whether the shit hits the fan, as can happen). I prefer the one that is there but won't start an argument. Maybe a place further down the article where it fits? Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

There's been a bit of conflict in the past over what image should be used in the infobox, so it's perfectly alright to seek consensus (not votes) before replacing it.Harryboyles 11:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll change it now. Should anyone have some objections, they can bring it up here. 58.170.122.143 (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

So it appears there are some objections. I wasn't aware of the sock-puppetry allegations against the above IP (as there wasn't any mention on the IP talk page), so the former image can stay for now, but it would be good to have a discussion to sort out the issue. I'm happy to be persuaded by arguments based on the encyclopedic merit of a particular image, but this should be discussed here, rather than having it play out in the article history. Harryboyles 16:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the history of the editor alters the substantive question "do we think it's a better photo to illustrate the topic?". Personally I think the old and new photos both suffer from being more representative of Surfers Paradise than the Gold Coast as a whole. But as I don't have a third alternative photo to propose, put me down as "don't care" in relation to whether it's the old or new photo. Kerry (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Since I have returned to Wikipedia, I would like to know if there are objections to the image I proposed in June. I still think the current image is inferior and should be replaced. I'm going to support my choice, could everyone else add their two cents and either support/object the one I have selected. In regards to the desire to have an image that represents the Gold Coast as a whole, the closest I can find under the appropriate license is that. Ashton 29 (talk) 05:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on Gold Coast, Queensland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150227183025/http://www.gu.edu.au/centre/gccm/InfoSheet/Seaway.pdf to http://www.gu.edu.au/centre/gccm/InfoSheet/Seaway.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100131021435/http://www.coastalmanagement.com.au:80/projects/NGCBPS to http://coastalmanagement.com.au/projects/NGCBPS/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140111084839/http://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/t_standard2.aspx?pid=651 to http://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/t_standard2.aspx?pid=651
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071013224829/http://sargesdailysurf.com:80/archives/news/2004/0104/240104b.html to http://www.sargesdailysurf.com/archives/news/2004/0104/240104b.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150502203029/http://www.griffith.edu.au/centre/gccm/gcsmp/ to http://www.griffith.edu.au/centre/gccm/gcsmp/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121014053405/http://www.tourismaustralia.com/content/Research/Factsheets/TopTen_Regions_Dec2006.pdf to http://www.tourismaustralia.com/content/Research/Factsheets/TopTen_Regions_Dec2006.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090913052039/http://goldcoast.qld.gov.au/t_standard.aspx?PID=7644 to http://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/t_standard.aspx?PID=7644
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110609180047/http://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/tendersweb/Tender.aspx?TenderID=435 to http://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/tendersweb/Tender.aspx?TenderID=435
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090728030431/http://www.surfside.com.au:80/surfside_busserv.htm to http://www.surfside.com.au/surfside_busserv.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091004045304/http://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/t_gcw.asp?pid=5909 to http://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/t_gcw.asp?PID=5909
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090629100102/http://www.watersecure.com.au:80/GoldCoastDesalinationPlant.htm to http://www.watersecure.com.au/GoldCoastDesalinationPlant.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

north to Ormeau?

@Neegzistuoja: asks for a citation to support the claim that the Gold Coast extends as far north as Ormeau. Now this is a good example of the problem we have between discussing the City of Gold Coast which is a well-defined set of boundaries and "Gold Coast" which is a somewhat ill-defined urban area that extends into Logan City to the north and across the NSW border into the Tweed. For the record the northernmost suburb of the City of Gold Coast is Alberton, Queensland which is a few suburbs north of Ormeau. As to the extent of the Gold Coast itself, this question has come up before. According to the Queensland Place Names database (the official wisdom), Gold Coast is an "unbounded" city/town/township, so it therefore has no official boundaries or extent. The origins of the name Gold Coast pretty clearly refer to the beachside suburbs popular with holidaymaker in the 1950s when the name was coined, and many Australians whose relationship with the Gold Coast is as a beachside holidaymaker will scoff at Ormeau or Wongawallan (both suburbs of City of Gold Coast) as being regarded as "on the Gold Coast" (who would holiday there?!). Meanwhile, markeeers knowing the value of the "Gold Coast" brand will happily advertise accommodation and attractions a long way from the beaches as being "on the Gold Coast" even extending into places in northern New South Wales. Should we define the Gold Coast's extent by sales literature? From time to time, people point to one of the many statistical boundaries used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics that is labelled "Gold Coast", e.g. Gold Coast (Statistical Area 4) which includes places as far west as Wonglepong (officially in the Scenic Rim Region), which appears to have no historic, geographic or administrative links to the Gold Coast whatsoever. For these reasons I think we should be very wary of saying anything about the "extent" of the Gold Coast. Perhaps we should just say vaguely (as that is all that is possible) that it is the urban area extending from the beachside suburbs popular with holiaymakers. Kerry (talk) 05:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

THE Gold Coast, not Gold Coast

The name of this urban area ought to be qualified with the definite article, that is - the. It doesn't seem grammatical to me to not do so. Anyone I know in Queensland refers to the subject of this article as THE Gold Coast, and not simply as Gold Coast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.168.143 (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

References to an upper class?

Australia does not have an upper class. Countries without an aristocracy are very rarely if ever considered to have an upper class. Why does this article contain references to an "upper class"? The highest socio-economic class in countries without an aristocracy is generally referred to as middle class or maybe upper-middle class. If these terms don't reflect the situation then perhaps use the term bourgeosie.

It is a historical reference. Are you suggesting there was never an upper class in Brisbane who traveled to the South Coast? Maybe the words "more wealthy" or something similar would be appropriate. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Gold Coast, 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160304115517/http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/3218.0Main%20Features152013-14?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=3218.0&issue=2013-14&num=&view= to http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/3218.0Main%20Features152013-14?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=3218.0&issue=2013-14&num=&view=
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141022060918/http://www.gamesbids.com/eng/other_news/1216135964.html to http://www.gamesbids.com/eng/other_news/1216135964.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120504160624/http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au:80/28_15736.htm to http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/28_15736.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110227110052/http://www.archives.qld.gov.au/1972cabdocs/beach.asp to http://www.archives.qld.gov.au/1972cabdocs/beach.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gu.edu.au/centre/gccm/InfoSheet/Seaway.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/t_standard2.aspx?pid=651
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.griffith.edu.au/centre/gccm/gcsmp/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120728194138/http://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/elections/state/State2012/results/summary.html to http://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/elections/state/State2012/results/summary.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.surfside.com.au/surfside_busserv.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150204022418/http://www.businessgc.com.au/sister-cities to http://www.businessgc.com.au/sister-cities

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gold Coast, 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141022060918/http://www.gamesbids.com/eng/other_news/1216135964.html to http://www.gamesbids.com/eng/other_news/1216135964.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120504160624/http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au:80/28_15736.htm to http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/28_15736.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120728194138/http://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/elections/state/State2012/results/summary.html to http://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/elections/state/State2012/results/summary.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Updating External Links

Hi all, I am updating the current "Visit Gold Coast – Official Tourism website" external link (which currently points to http://www.visitgoldcoast.com... which then redirects you to https://www.destinationgoldcoast.com) to instead read "Destination Gold Coast - Official Tourism website" (and to have it point to the new URL https://www.destinationgoldcoast.com). This is in line with Gold Coast Tourism's recent rebrand from Visit Gold Coast to Destination Gold Coast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.202.16.108 (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gold Coast, 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013210849/http://sdi.qld.gov.au/dsdweb/v3/guis/templates/content/gui_cue_cntnhtml.cfm?id=17935 to http://www.sdi.qld.gov.au/dsdweb/v3/guis/templates/content/gui_cue_cntnhtml.cfm?id=17935
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050404183124/http://www.asca.asn.au/documents.html to http://www.asca.asn.au/documents.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060819182957/http://www.sdi.qld.gov.au/dsdweb/v3/guis/templates/content/gui_cue_cntnhtml.cfm?id=17918 to http://www.sdi.qld.gov.au/dsdweb/v3/guis/templates/content/gui_cue_cntnhtml.cfm?id=17918

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) 03:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)