Jump to content

Talk:History of the Australian Capital Territory

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleHistory of the Australian Capital Territory is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 1, 2011.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 29, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
December 14, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
June 5, 2010Featured article reviewKept
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 6, 2010, December 6, 2012, December 6, 2013, December 6, 2018, December 6, 2023, and December 6, 2024.
Current status: Featured article

Historic Map of the ACT

[edit]
Map of Historic ACT
Map of Historic ACT

I have been working on a map to show houses and villages that where already in the area around the time the ACT was created. I have just been going off the top of my head adding places as I think of them. Any suggestions as to other notable places I should add. I have already thought of oaks estate since I uploaded the image. --Martyman-(talk) 10:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since its the whole ACT, you could potentially include all the homsteads that were in Namadgi, there is a big list here- they're all marked on the Namadgi park map if you have one. Hill Station Homestead, Mugga Mugga, Calthorpes is more recent (1927) but it is registered with the National Trust. And I just found this list of the Hertiage sites in the ACT which lists everything! --nixie 11:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a map of indigenous artefact sites might be neat too.--nixie 11:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good ideas. I will look into them. But I will be in Syndey for two days starting tomorrow so I might not get to them for a while. --Martyman-(talk) 11:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a few more places now. Still working on it. A lot of the huts in Namadgi date from fairly recent times (1960s), though a few of the older ones predate Canberra and I have added them. Does anyone know of a list of indigenous sites in the ACT? I think this would also make a useful map. --Martyman-(talk) 09:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just realised I need to remove the other dams off this map. Does anyone know where abouts at tidbinbilla "Rock Valley" homestead is? --Martyman-(talk) 09:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rock Valley can be seen on this map, it was severly fire damaged- something that wasn't mentioned in the 1991 document I was using earlier. [1]--nixie 10:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


They're all recorded on that ACT heritage list, the big ones are the three in Tidbinbilla, Yankee Hat in Namadgi- apparently there are 25 known shelters in the park, 6 quarries, 6 rock art sites, and so on- but the only one I know the location for is Yankee hat, the two chert quarries in Canberra (one in Symonston and one in Gungahlin), there is a rock shelter somewhere in Belconnen.There are numersou artefact site and scarred trees- probably too maky to but on the map.
All the dates for I added to the history section should be right for the original settlements in Namadgi, there is some more detial here [2], I also haven't added Cuppacumbalong- it was established in 1839 and Bobeyab run which was first settled in the 1830s. There was also a school in Alum Creek from ~1886 [3].--nixie 09:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What's been happening with this map? Is it finished to the point of being able to be added to the article? Ambi 01:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. I have not made any changes to it for a while, but I don't vouch for it's completeness. Any suggestions about content or format would be appreciated. --Martyman-(talk) 01:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How about use numbers on the map, and then a key with large text so that it can be read without the high resolution version? Maybe a light outline of the districts of Canberra?. But in any case I think it would look fine in the article now Astrokey44 11:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I will give the numbers a try tomorrow. I have already tried a version of the map with a light outline of Canberra included, but it seemed to just confuse matters. I might try again and see if I can get it to work. --Martyman-(talk) 11:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes:

  • Canberry was demolished in 1941
  • Lambrigg would be a good addition, its near Tharwa
  • Gungahlin homestead also known as the Squire- built in 1861- currently occupied by CSIRO
  • Woden homestead (in Hume) ~ 1870s
  • Cotter Homestead- 1830s (gone now) near the cotter hut

But, on a 300px thumb, the text is illegible. Does it look really crappy with a larger fot size?--nixie 11:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will try and go through and add these tomorrow, and I will try out bigger text (not sure there is room) and key with numbers (the key would have to be pretty massive to be ledgable). I am not sure where in relation to Tharwa and Lanyon Lambrigg is located. I will double check my maps but I don't think it is noted on any of them. --Martyman-(talk) 11:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't find it on a map either, if it helps the national trust gives this description of the site:

The Lambrigg Precinct (Block 7) is situated on undulating ground fronting onto the Murrumbidgee River. From gently sloping river flats the land rises to a low ridge then flattens out into undulating country until the property's western boundary, along the Tidbinbilla Road, is reached. Barnes Creek cuts through the property running west to east, entering the Murrumbidgee on the eastern boundary. A low ridge and saddle running approximately north to south through the centre of the property provides a commanding view in all directions. The view to the north takes in the southern extent of the Tuggeranong Valley, whilst the easterly and southern views encompass the Rob Roy Range, the Lanyon bowl and Mount Tennant. The view to the west takes in the lightly timbered hills of the Tidbinbilla Range.[4]--nixie 11:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded a newer version fo the map. Unfortunatly I have guessed the location of the Gungahlin, Woden, Cotter and Lambrigg homesteads. If anyone can pinpoint their location better it would be great. I am also still missing some dates. I had better call it a night, but I will see what I can do about makign the text ledgable tomorrow. --Martyman-(talk) 11:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here is a newer version of the map with larger text and Canberra suburbs lightly showing. If we decide this is the way to go I still need to do a bit of tweaking of text locations to avoid overlapping. Opinions? --Martyman-(talk) 10:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The map looks great! I wonder if it would be a good idea to do it in a series? So you have say maps from say 1850, 1880 and 1910 showing increased development over time? Astrokey44 12:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While I would certainly see the benefit in doing that, maps need to be fairly large if they're to be legible, and that takes up a lot of space in the article. If we want the three maps to be the only illustrations, that might work, but otherwise I think it might be best to leave it at just one. Ambi 13:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Given that we really don't know all the information about what was settled and when and this map just shows the historically well recorded places- it would be difficult to make a set of more detailed maps without some very serious research. I think the current version looks great, thanks again Martyman.--nixie 21:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Article structure

[edit]

Does anyone have an opinion on how the article should be structured? I'm probably in favour of a basically chronological article- but a thematic histroy could work too. I could definately use some help dividing history up into chunks.--nixie 02:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC) So far it's:[reply]

  • prehistory,
  • european settlement - could probably be further divided,
  • choice of a capital - this section could possibly go as far as the end of WWII, eht end of WWI may be a better cut off,
  • ? ACT Supreme Court Act 1933
  • ? 1949-first house of reps seat, 1950s establishment of the National Capital Development Commission
  • 1960's - satellite tracking stations, development of "new towns"?,
  • 1970s and 1980s self-government, telstra tower high court case, Senate (Representation of Territories) Act 1973?
  • recent- fires

Geologic History

[edit]

Do you think the geologic history of the area should covered here? It is already briefly described in the ACT article. --Martyman-(talk) 01:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. --Martyman-(talk) 22:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Photos

[edit]

Here are some possible photos from the NLA that could be used as illustrations for this article. --Martyman-(talk) 11:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice find! I think one of the Tharwa bridge ones is a must (they're both good, but only one is probably necessary), and the first and third surveyors camp ones would do wonders in this article. Ambi

Peer review

[edit]

Edits to this article have slowed in the last few days and I think it's really not far from being featurable. What would you all think about putting it on peer review? Is there anything not covered which we should do first? Ambi 12:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have a pretty good idea about what peer review would bring up, (1) the lead needs to be expanded to summarise the content, probably 2 to 3 paragraphs (2) the 21st century should probably have something in addition to the fires (3) we should stubbify some more of the red links and remove useless wikilinks (4) html markup needs to be added in some sections. Since the bulk of the reviewers know nothing about the suject they wouldn't be able to point out specific deficiencies.
From my reading I know that the indigenious and european sections are poor, they lack detail and are still disorgainzed I'm planning to work on them further- but I don't have much time to spend on it at the moment. I also think we need to do something about the ugly template, which takes up too much space that could be used for related images.--nixie 12:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have been creating some stubs for red links in the article. I agree that the history template is ugly and big, unfortunatly it's modification will effect lots of articles and therefore may meet with resistance. --Martyman-(talk) 23:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to get discussion happening on the template page- but not much has happened yet. Ideally the template would be half as long - and in a really ideal world it wouldn't have states and territories and capitals (I think that they should be on their own template). I might make some dummy ones later and put them on the talk page.--nixie 02:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think some dummy templates are good idea. They at least will give people somehitng definate to discuss. --Martyman-(talk) 02:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See, Template talk:History of Australia.--nixie 03:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We really should attempt to find some reputable sources for the activites decriminalised in the ACT- mabye the ACT hansard? There are assorted bits and pieces commented out in the text that could be added or need verification.--nixie 13:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The entire register of Hansard is online and indexed by Google if we're after quotes or such (handy resource, too, and one I've used quite a bit in writing articles on ACT politics), but it might be easier if we're just looking for verification to go straight to the legislation register, which has every act of the Assembly indexed by year. Ambi 14:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

[edit]

For the sake of variety, it would be nice if the photos here were different from the ones used in History of Canberra, and especially show areas outside Canberra. I think photos of Hall, Tharwa and the Cotter Dam would look good here if anyone is going out in those directions? Astrokey44 08:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for inclusion

[edit]

I was thinking that the settlement of Brindabella is probably worth adding to the article. It is an example of the conflict between the europeans and aboriginals in the area. --Martyman-(talk) 10:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if its the same story but there was conflict surrounding the establishemnt on Berridale by Richard Brooks in 1827. I will add it to the article at some point.--nixie 11:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, I htink it was a different case. This was Joseph Franklin in 1849 see: [5] --Martyman-(talk) 01:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LinkFix Dump

[edit]

As per request of User:Petaholmes. See User:Ambush Commander/LinkFix dump. 

================================================================================
LinkFix Dump
History of the Australian Capital Territory
2005-11-25.00-32-00
================================================================================
12  [[Jervis Bay]] -> DISAMBIG
12  [[Goulburn]] -> [[Goulburn, New South Wales]]
17  [[George Palmer]] -> DISAMBIG
45  [[Freehold]] -> DISAMBIG
71  [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration]] -> [[NASA]]
87  [[Canberra bushfires of 2003]] -> [[2003 Canberra bushfires]]
# DONE
Checked: 129
Skipped: 26
Errors: 17
Hits: 5
Time: 13:19

— Ambush Commander(Talk) 05:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed all errors. Wikipedia must have been slow when I ran the bot. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 17:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Links have been fixed. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 19:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

[edit]

Just a couple of things: would it be possible to get photos of some of the historic buildings outside of Canberra? A few of our photos in this article are a little bit random, and I think some nice colour photos of surviving historical places would look beautiful. Secondly, is Ginninderra Village worth mentioning here? Ambi 01:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lanyon Homestead would make a good photo if anyone is heading out that way, once the hisotric map gets added there won't be much room left for historical images. A good pic showing the lake and the parliament houses should go in the development of Canberra section. The only images that I'm not sure of is the stromlo one.
Ginninderra is mentioned in the history section- beyond that all I know about it is that there are some touristy things there- I don't know of anything significant, beyond that which is already mentioned, that happened there.--nixie 04:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I added the stromlo photo, but am not overly attached to it. A shot of the burnt out admin building with the telescope domes visible would be a better photo for stromlo post 2003.--Martyman-(talk) 05:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New version of map

[edit]
Map of the ACT and Jervis Bay

I have created a new version of the ACT-Jervis Bay map including Sydney. I am not sure if it is an improvement or not over the existing map. I think it may reduce the size of the ACT and Jervis bay too far. What do you guy's think?

PS. I know there are a couple of errors like the names of two towns being cut off the top, also the different sized dots may not accuratly describe settlement sizes... ;-) --Martyman-(talk) 10:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
done. --Martyman-(talk) 11:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Public Service

[edit]

I notice Public Service is a redirect to Public Services we really mean Civil service. I will change where the article links, but maybe we should look at changing the redirect or creating a disambiguation page. --Martyman-(talk) 01:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Public Service (capitalised) is a stub on some band's album of that name, public service is the redirect to Public services. Agree that the appropriate dab notices should be affixed to the former, and possibly to have the latter also a dab, pointing to both Public services and Civil Service. But for AU articles, we should probably retain the local terminology, ie use something like [[Civil Service|Public Service]]. Or perhaps, maybe an Australian Public Service article would be warranted.--cjllw | TALK 02:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wow that is more complicated than I thought. I would think the best arrangement would be to make Public service a disambiguation page with links to Civil service, Public Service (EP) and Public services. Public Service should be made into a redirect to the disambiguation page. An article on teh Australian Public Service could be written or included in Government of Australia. --Martyman-(talk) 02:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A really easy soultion would be to delink the phase in this article ;) --nixie 02:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, my inner pedant got the better of me before I saw Nixie's low-cost solution, and I've already gone ahead and moved Public Service to Public Service (EP), and turned Public Service into a dab with the appropriate links. Public service is still a redirect to Public services, I've left that alone for the moment. From the pages which link to it, Public service could be either Civil service or public services, dunno whether it's worthwhile making this a dab as well, or leave as-is.--cjllw | TALK 04:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there are probably capitalization isses, but I redirected Public service to Public Service.--nixie 04:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistic group

[edit]

The Ngunnawal people and other linguistic groups are known to have inhabited the region for at least 21,000 years before the present.

Can anyone think of a better alternative than linguistic group? Andjam 07:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Ngambri People are the Aboriginal owners of the land that includes the Australian Capital Territory. Ngambri/Ngurmal People speak Walgalu language. Ngunnawal or more correctly, Onerwal is the language of the Wallabalooah.Boorowa group north of the Yass River. Shane Mortimer (talk) 03:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two minor issues

[edit]

I just thought of two more recent legislative moves that may warrant mention here: the 2002 decriminalisation of abortion and the government's recent steps towards potentially legalising civil unions in the not-too-distant future. Any thoughts on adding either of those? Ambi 03:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hume pic

[edit]

Hume never really explored in the Canberra region.--nixie 01:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool I removed it. Can you think of any other images that might be appropriate for that section? --Martyman-(talk) 01:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cunningham is the only one that already has a pic on Wikipedia- I'm searching around for others.--nixie 01:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Googong picture caption

[edit]

The newly added caption for the googong pic may be a bit misleading. The dam is actually in NSW but was built to service the ACT (and Queanbeyan). --Martyman-(talk) 05:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better now?--nixie 06:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Version

[edit]

Hi everyone!

I am translating this very good article into Spanish.

I subscribe to the point of view just expressed in a edition summary that no politician "passes" a law. So I used the expresion "he got (the law) passed", wich makes very good sense in Spanish (Not that much in English, perhaps?) when translating. I see now that someone already fixed that here too.

If you see any important failure in this article and correct it, please, would you kindly let me know here? Though it is in my Watchlist, anyway I would appreciate your comments.

Now, if any of you guys speak Spanish, please feel free to check my translation (not yet finished) and tell me where yu think I can improve it.

Best regards--Universal001 (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fifelfoo's concerns.

[edit]

The below is transcluded from Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/History of the Australian Capital Territory/archive1.

Comments: Not well researched, not comprehensive, not restricted to its subject. Doesn't do what it says it does (history); does what it doesn't says it do's (social geography, legal minutae). §Development outside Canberra is social geography at best. §Development of Canberra doesn't discuss the unusually planned nature of Canberra. §Establishment of the Territory in law is incomplete telling half a story. There's no social history after foundation. The expected labour history is absent. Its also effectively a fork of History_of_Canberra. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article would have obvious imbalances and undercovered areas if we looked at some books, but what's wrong with mentioning the historical development of infrastructure such as the building of highways and dams in the "devt outside Canb" section? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then it should be written as history. There's no purposive statement about the need, argument, funding arrangement, cause for expansions of dams. I've read some riveting histories of water supply in Australia; this article doesn't adequately contextualise the water supply issue. "Past things in the ACT" isn't history. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article does exactly what it says - it's a history of the ACT as a whole, not a history of Canberra. The specifics about the planning of Canberra belong, as you state, in History of Canberra. I'm not sure what you feel is missing with regard to the establishment of the territory in law, but perhaps you might feel kind enough to oblige us. I'm also not sure what you feel the "expected labour history" might be, which is strange since I'm fairly well-read on this particular subject. Rebecca (talk) 07:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a conclusion to the issue of resumption and leasehold which ends with the stale hook, "The Minister suggested that landowners accept the departmental valuation or hire a Queens Counsel and appeal to the High Court." Departing from a narrative mid-story is a serious problem, its as if the issue of leasehold was dropped, and it isn't resumed later in the discussion of suburban subdivision. The minutae of government instrumentalities in the 1950s is insufficiently thematised, this is not summary style, it is a chronology. This is not good work. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right - that is one thing that warrants fixing. I could also agree that some of the phrasing surrounding the content under the development of Canberra could stand to be reworked. However, describing what's said there as "minutiae" just shows that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about concerning the content of this article - that "minutiae" covered the entire administration of the ACT prior to 1989, and was a heavily influential force on every aspect of the city and jurisdiction. Rebecca (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and in relation to labour history, most state histories in Australia have been defined at some point by the cultural and legal reaction to industrial disputation. Histories exist of the relationship between ACOA and the Public Service. If this isn't the History of Canberra then why do the articles read like pov FORKs with little difference in content? Fifelfoo (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that it's particularly notable. It might be the case in other states, but the history of the ACT - and the history of Canberra - have not been defined in any major way by industrial disputes. This is because Canberra never actually had any notable industry - while the public sector unions could and did raise a racket when required, I can't think of a single conflict which would warrant mentioning here. It certainly pales in significance to the events which you've dismissed as "minutiae" above - which reinforces my opinion that you have absolutely no clue on the subject - in which case, why are you trying to review the content in detail?
This article was intended to be exactly what it states - a history of the territory as a whole, with an appropriate summary style treatment for Canberra. History of Canberra was intended to be the next project, but the project stalled, so it's not in the greatest state. Nevertheless, the problems with that article have no bearing on the eligibility of this article for FA status. And seriously, "POV fork?" Change hands and quit mouthing off, will you? Rebecca (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all of ACT lives in Canberra; most of the non-Canberra part of ACT is satellite stations, Mt Stromlo, forest, etc. So similarity is hard to avoid, especially with politics YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 08:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for insulting me; please contact me when the article actually meets writing and research criteria. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It clearly already meets research criteria - not that you'd know much about that. Remind me why you're editing an encyclopedia again? Rebecca (talk) 08:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may be interested in WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not questioning your faith - I'm questioning your knowledge and your attitude, both of which are, to put it lightly, rather off. Rebecca (talk) 09:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surely we aren't voting yet anyway (not at FARC), or am I missing something? Aaroncrick (talk) 09:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, and no need to get too worked up early either YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 09:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having mistaken FARC for FAC, here's detailed listing
There is no social history after establishment. This is a game breaking research error.
Game-breaking how? The period before the establishment of the territory is necessarily heavy on social history, but it's not the most important aspect of the post-establishment period; the article covers all the most important aspects of that period. Further detail belongs in History of Canberra. Rebecca (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lede is 19th century heavy and doesn't represent the article's focus on social geography and civil works
This is nonsense. The first paragraph focuses on the pre-establishment period; the second paragraph focuses on the post-establishment period. Each paragraph aptly summarises the material in the article on that time period. Rebecca (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no contextualisation of social meaning. One can read this article and walk away without knowing the whys or becauses of the ACT, with one small exception on land tenure disputes in relation to pastoralists.
What "contextualisation of social meaning" would you like to see? Rebecca (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why were pastoralists important in the pre-ACT; why did they cease being important; what force replaced them (Direct Federal Intervention for example), why was their dispute over self-governance, how did the housing crisis manifest, why did a "development" mentality hold post 1930. Does the history of the ACT differ to other states and territories, how, why. If we're going to keep the large government-as-agent section, then the unique agency of the Federal government in relation to the ACT needs to be clearly drawn out, "After the 1930s, Federal initiative replaced inter-state bartering or the process of government response to landholders such as pastoralists" The absence of characters and themes in the article makes it extremely difficult to follow. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
" and from what can be reconstructed from evidence obtained from remaining archæological sites, there is an adequate record of the history of the local indigenous peoples prior to European exploration and settlement." Adequate history not given in article.
Useful suggestion. Rebecca (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1788 the British landed at Sydney Cove, and the European settlement of Australia began.[6] As the colony expanded more land was needed to grant to free settlers for farming.[7]" Off context, dubious interpretation which slips a pro-Settler POV into the article.
Useful suggestion. Rebecca (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anachronistic context: "When the limits of location for settlement in New South Wales were determined, the Limestone Plains were authorised for settlement by British settlers and settlers of other European origins.[13] The first land grant in the area was made to Joshua John Moore in 1823," limits of location being established in 1826. Inadequate context on pastorialism.
What context would you like to see? It seems apt to me. Rebecca (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contextualise both. "With the expansion of pastoralism limits on the extent of British land grants came into play. The grant system was limited by customary graft relations, but these were further restricted by enforced limits of location for European land ownership. Later the grants system was cut off entirely and the government made available only land within the limits of location for sale. John Moore was granted land in the future ACT region in 1823 under the original system of government grant..."Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"During the first 20 years of European settlement." Irrelevant. Settlement in the ACT dates to 1820, 32 years after European settlement. Or is "Settlement in the region later to become the ACT" meant? Needs to be integrated into the narrative of early pastoral settlement, not separated. "the further decimation of the Aboriginal population." What initial decimation? Decimation should be avoided as it also has a specific meaning.
Useful suggestion. Rebecca (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Over the succeeding years, " from when?
"The district's change … the other one becoming capital." Too long and off context. "As a result of interstate rivalries during the period leading up to Federation a compromise was reached."
"A compromise was eventually reached between the two houses" lack of context, what kind of compromise, which agents, the House of Representatives and Senate rarely act in the manner described, normally dividing on party lines, yet there's no discussion.
There's no discussion because what you're talking about wasn't the case in 1909. I don't understand why you're forcefully making demands about the article's content based on things that you're blatantly ignorant of. Rebecca (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So which interests caused the division? The house doesn't divide on a whim, but on party, argument or interest. Was the division states-states; urban-rural; pastoralist-farmer; industrialist-agricultural; imperial-national, etc etc etc. Causes please. Placing events without cause gives rise to the lack of context. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What, there were social agitations around this, "Two people who had campaigned particularly strongly for the federal capital to be in the Canberra area and against the Dalgety site were John Gale,[46] the publisher of the Queanbeyan Age,[47] and federal politician King O'Malley." This is the first we hear of them. Wow, imagine that we should discussion the reasons for popular agitation regarding the capital's site? Were these provincialist, economically interests, graft based, what kind of arguments were these?
This could probably be better explained, but I suspect you'll find that none of those apply: King O'Malley was a politician from Tasmania, for one. Rebecca (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then O'Malley is even more interesting as taking a dedicated interest in the seating of a capital outside of his area of partisan, electoral and financial interest. He must have had some motivation (even selfless ones are interesting). Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
" that no land in the Territory can be held " needs a continuous tense as it is past, current and continuing
Useful suggestion. Rebecca (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The Minister for Home Affairs, King O'Malley, who was responsible for the legislation creating the ACT" and hasn't been introduced as a major character in the drama. King O'Malley the [blah and blah] who represented [blah interests] and [notable features and scandals] was a key federal figure behind the agitation for the ACT in Canberra.
This probably warrants some more explanation. Rebecca (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"King O'Malley successfully pushed through legislation that restricted all land holdings in the new territory to leasehold, rather than freehold. " We heard this two paragraphs ago, why is it being resumed as the subject? "This was intended to avoid land speculation and give the national government, as the lessor, greater control over development." Oh intentions? Perhaps we could actually talk more about intentionality in this whole process, like characterising the factional interests over the site debate in the early 20th century with some greater detail?
What factional interests are you talking about? I have absolutely no clue what you're referring to. Rebecca (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Victoria" and "New South Wales" don't act as free agents, they act through their governments, often comprised of parties or coalitions of interests, they act for causes and reasons. For example, what caused NSW to refuse to sell the land to the Commonwealth? Was it part of the general post-federation fiscal resentment which the States felt towards the new apparatus of public service? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Almost without exception, land valuations fell far short of freeholders’ expectations when compared to equivalent land across the border in NSW. The Minister suggested that landowners accept the departmental valuation or hire a Queens Counsel and appeal to the High Court." And please resolve this narrative with a conclusion. Pastoralism in the ACT post 1930 is not adequately discussed later.
Useful suggestion. Rebecca (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
" Royal Military College, established on the Campbell's property Duntroon" Context: why a military college, wasn't Boyhood Conscription a national issue at the time during a surge of racist military hysteria?
This smells to me like something that would be an original research. Rebecca (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well it would be if we just wrote it in, the issue is to give an example why, an example context, and show how the meaning of events needs to be included in the article. I'm not wedded to a particular reason, but to the reason and description of causes which ought to exist in secondary sources if they were written by historians being included in the article. "As a part of institution building, the Federal Government desired to fill out the necessities of an early 20th century state including officer training." "In the Imperial hysteria caused by the Great White Fleet visits and the threat of wars in the early 20th Century, amongst other war mongering initiatives..." "X Xson argued for Duntroon, in part because of his personal love of parades." The meanings and intentions are just as important as the events. They are particularly important to the writing quality. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
" an international competition to design the future capital was held" Unusual, why, context
What context would you expect? It's somewhat self-explanatory. Rebecca (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most countries do not build capitals afresh. Given that a capital is a national symbol, it is unusual to tender an international competition. Why was Canberra designed by competition instead of tender or direct selection of an architect or the appointment of a government architect? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Griffin design section is old research and fails to deal with the gender issues in the design
How is it "old research"? The "Griffin plan" coverage in the article is one solid paragraph; I'm not sure that "the gender issues" warrant mentioning in a broad summary style topic such as this.
The other Griffin, the female one? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"After official indecision over the plan," why?
Useful suggestion. Rebecca (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Bureaucratic wrangling delayed Griffin's work" why? "certain officials" who?
The discussion of the Garden City and its impact on the social and cultural nature Canberra is entirely lacking
What impact are you talking about? It's something that warrants mentioning in passing, but I can't see this being notable enough for any great discussion even in [[History of canberra[[.
The feature is the most remarked element of Canberra for a visitor, the undisclosing eyelines, the culdesacs, the go north to go east. This ties into the "Designed city" issue, and the "Housing crisis" issue. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"At first the public service remained based in Melbourne, the various departments' headquarters only gradually moving to Canberra over the space of several years." As the central disturbance in departmental and government function this is sadly understated and unexplored.
This is definitely something that could do with a bit more attention. Rebecca (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bruce Juddery, White collar power : a history of the ACOA Sydney : George Allen & Unwin, 1980. is good for this. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"After World War II there was a shortage of housing and office space in Canberra" This entire paragraph obliterates the residents, culture, society, and workers of Canberra, and replaces social history with a discussion of committee function. It is an appalling paragraph which in no way discusses the cost of living in Canberra or the housing shortage.
I agree to some extent; it doesn't mention the hostel system, which housed a large proportion of early workers in Canberra, and the challenges faced by those who moved there in the early years. However, I'm not sure why it would go into any great detail on the housing shortage of the cost of living; I would say neither was a tremendously notable issue.
As opposed to the physical structure of dams in the greater ACT or the minor plantation forest industry? The lack of housing, the hunger for housing, and the social and cultural history of the ACT post pastoralism is lacking. The housing shortage is a perfect case to raise Federal control, urbanisation, public service issues, etc. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"On average, the population of Canberra increased by more than 50% every five years between 1955 and 1975 as the development of the capital became more concerted." the population is entirely undiscussed.
Useful suggestion. Rebecca (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no discussion of private industry for that matter, even if it was limited to commercial sectors. For example the unusual siting of retail businesses.
As I've already stated, there was and is no major private industry in the ACT. What "unusual siting" are you referring to?
Early retail districts are sited off major transport routes in contrast to the "grown" cities in the rest of Australia which were reliant on high streets and highways for retail locations. Given the apparent lack of non-forestry primary industry post 1930, the obvious lack of secondary industry, the issue of retail development can hold a place. This could be available through contrast to, for example, NSW, where retail development has exerted immense pressure on local and state government post 1960. ACT retail associations, such as those in Civic, don't seem to have played such a role. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The absence of social history, the population of Canberra is telling, and proceeds to get worse, where the population of the ACT appear to lack the ability to form social groups. For example, "Some of the anti-self-government representatives sought to disrupt the territory's legislature from the inside,[132] and a no-confidence motion toppled Labor after only seven months." Who. Why? What backers? What social groupings? From which suburbs (Oh, Canberra again... right... this isn't a history of Canberra is it? Or is it, "Despite a 1978 referendum, in which Canberrans rejected self government by 63% of the vote,")
This would be plain and simple original research. I've read the definitive history of the self-government movement (own a copy, actually), and while a better explanation of it mightn't hurt, the sorts of assumptions you're making about it are just not borne out. It wasn't based in any particular suburbs; it wasn't based in any particular social groupings; the anti-self-government movement, I would argue, isn't even a matter of influential backers of any note. This is another case where you're actually demanding changes to the article based on things you've got no clue about. Rebecca (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then its absence from the article is remarkable in itself. I look at the article and go, "Why is there no mention of the self-government / anti-self-government movement?" If you own the definitive version, then add it. None of these suggestions are, "Please describe the development of the ACT thusly..." all have been examples of missing purposive statements. Given that self-government was as large a change as the establishment of the Federal Government in Canberra; it is woefully underdescribed. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Development outside Canberra lacks a discussion of private industry in the period
Because it doesn't exist. Really. The authors of this article didn't leave it out to deprive you of interesting tidbits; they left it out because there wasn't any, and accordingly, there's nothing that warrants mentioning here. Rebecca (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The absence is remarkable in and of itself. Why was pastorialism missing? Why was plantation forestry federally controlled? Why is the ACT effectively a company town of the Federal Government? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its civil works section fails entirely to answer "why" questions. The civil works appear to exist without people or in many cases function or purpose.
Which "why" questions are you referring to? Rebecca (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why did the ACT require a dam for water supply? Why did it require a dam extention? Who proposed and organised the extended dam. For that matter, given we're talking water supply, how does Canberra process its shit? (A question as important as the supply of water) Did the Federal Government go begging the US for the establishment of Satellite Tracking stations? Did the US ask the Federal Government? Development doesn't "just happen". Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no discussion of the social, cultural or population structure of the ACT outside of Canberra after the section on leasehold: This article is effectively History of Canberra at the moment, and should either be improved to cover a history of the ACT, or merged.
Again, this is for a reason. While something could probably be said about the early coexistence of the pastoralists in the territory with the citizens of Canberra, the government began gaining pastoral leases in the area fairly early on, so there's very little that could be said in terms of social history post, say, 1960. Rebecca (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then it would be necessary to note the centrality of Canberra in the history of the ACT, and to note features of Canberra's social history of importance. For example, "The houses of parliament have been a target of repeated protest since 19__ when ____." I'm thinking notable examples here include Trucky blocades for one. Canberra, and thus the ACT, is a site of performance both for Australia's elite, and for a more general population in the form of protest. Hell, there's the missing labour history, while the ACT's internal labour history has been produced largely by bargaining (the ACOA example); its also been used to represent the nation to itself such as the anti-Howard union demo which resulted in outrage because a cop was injured, or the guy driving into parliament. (And here to you've got the presence of formal national memorials, or the reconstitution of the Federal Highway, which is more than simply Canberra, as a memorial). Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The narrative as a whole appears to lack the thematisation or structuring of social groups and causes expected of the history of a region. Landowners appear early as an important social group, but their political and cultural organisation is subsumed beneath "A history of Federation and the Federal Government's situation of a capital territory." Similarly Territorians themselves are subsumed beneath the action of government instrumentalities, and at the moments they pop their heads up (the housing crisis for example with its attendant Cost of Living issues which caused significant mediated dispute between the Commonwealth and its unions), they're smashed beneath a government centred account. The narrative is a hodge podge, with obvious tack ons (the failure to integrate post European indigeneous history into the discussion of European settlement.). The article lacks the statements about intention and meaning which are expected, and ought to exist in secondary sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you seem to be arguing for things that aren't borne out in reality. What "political and cultural organisation" of landowners are you referring to? I think you're overplaying the significance of the housing crisis; while this section could possibly be reworked somewhat, I think the changes you're requesting are inappropriate. I agree that post-European indigenous history is something that's missing from the article. But most of the "intention and meaning" taht you keep demanding to seems to have come from a bunch of assumptions that aren't actually based in any knowledge of the subject, and thus sure as hell isn't helpful here. Rebecca (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking why the population of the ACT is absent from the history of the ACT. If they are genuinely uninterested and disorganised (the 1930s disputes about conversion of land into lease hold indicates otherwise) then the absence of social organisation is just as interesting as its presence. Are you going to suggest that the rural ACT region lacked pastoral societies, Lions clubs, RSLs, churches, community organisations? You show an inability to abstract the point: this article fails to describe the society, culture, internal differentiation, structuring of intention of the population of the ACT. It fails to disclose the causers, interests, motivations and intentions of elements of Government. It produces "Development" as an accomplished fact as if development is a process existing in aether. The article currently fails to answer why questions, or describe the difference between the ACT and other states and territories: this failure means that the article fails to describe the ACT. The interesting differences and absences are in themselves remarkable. "Unlike other states and territories the ACT lacks large influential primary and secondary industries; land development, centrally controlled through the leasehold system, has not been subject to the whims of private development corporations, and the release of land by government in the ACT has been comparatively controlled." (This previous sentence being an example of answering questions about meaning, not a suggestion that this was what actually happened but rather the areas of meaning which a reader would expect to have answered.) Without answers in these areas the article produces the ACT as a generic space. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is absurd, the rural population of the ACT never amounted to more than 2 or 3 thousand people. It certainly didn't support a full panoply of "pastoral societies, Lions clubs, RSLs, churches, community organisations".--Grahame (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Cultural relations

[edit]

I'm not horribly happy with the cultural relations section, and I was wondering if anyone has any additional sources. The current sources in the second paragraph a good, but they seem to conflict with other sources I've seen which suggests that numbers didn't diminish that much - I was wondering if the other sources were wrong, or if this may have been part of the 70's "dying race" view, which led to believe that numbers were greatly reduced. At any rate, I've removed for now the line "As the encroachment of European settlement continued, numbers of surviving Aboriginal families were drawn to the farms and townships by the opportunity to work or receive handouts of food and blankets." as I don't currently have any sources for the presence of handouts, although I do have sources showing that they worked on the stations at the time, especially after convicts were no longer available. - Bilby (talk) 05:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've also removed "The Ngambri community remain active and ambitious to further restore their cultural heritage" from the same section - it's a descriptive claim, which makes it hard or impossible to reference at an FA level. However, if anyone knows a way of sourcing it I'd be very happy. :) - Bilby (talk) 08:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the material about early European contact with Aboriginals reads to me like a generalised statement about the effects of European contact on Aborigines without any evidence that it related to the specific place and time of European contact in the ACT. I was inclined to delete it unless somebody could show sources for its specific relevance to the ACT. Keep up the good work.--Grahame (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Search for a capital city location

[edit]

This section was horrendously verbose, going into painful detail, in a very long WP article, about all the places that ended up not becoming the ACT. I've hacked it in half, and hopefully not offended too many people by doing so. regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem text: 1860s - 1880s

[edit]

The text as of 31 December contained the following paragraph:

In 1859, Terence Aubrey Murray sold Yarralumla station and all its buildings and livestock to his brother-in-law, Augustus Onslow Manby Gibbes, who had been the station's manager for the previous four years. Augustus was joined at Yarralumla homestead by his father, Colonel John George Nathaniel Gibbes, a former Member of the Legislative Council and the newly retired Collector of Customs for NSW. Together, they made improvements to the estate and successfully lobbied the colonial government for the establishment of the first Canberra post office and mail service. Yarralumla remained in Gibbes ownership until 1881 when it was sold to Duntroon station's manager, Frederick Campbell, who became the estate's last private proprietor. The Commonwealth of Australia took possession of Yarralumla through compulsory acquisition in 1911, and later transformed Campbell's vacated house and grounds into the official residence of the nation's governor-general.

This is completely uncited. I think it has crept in in bits over the last year. It needs proper citation if and when it gets returned to the article. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on History of the Australian Capital Territory. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 13:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of the Australian Capital Territory. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 15:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

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

Shane Mortimer (talk) 03:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC) As a Ngambri Elder and direct descendent of Ija Ngambri and James Ainslie, with a seven generation maternal Ngambri lineage to the Ngambri/Ainslie union, the edit I have made to the Wikipedia entry for the History of the Australian Capital Territory has been done with authenticity, accuracy and follow an eleven year research by Ann Jackson-Nakano and the subsequent publication by the Australian National University - Canberra of Ms Jackson-Nakano's book entitled "The Kamberri". Should anyone have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me directly or via this page. Shane Mortimer (talk) 03:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 03:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 18:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of the Australian Capital Territory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on History of the Australian Capital Territory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on History of the Australian Capital Territory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the Australian Capital Territory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the Australian Capital Territory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the Australian Capital Territory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the Australian Capital Territory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_Australian_Capital_Territory&oldid=1261610368"