Talk:Coogee, Western Australia

Australia: Places / Western Australia / Perth Low‑importance

	Australia portal Coogee, Western Australia 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian places (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Perth (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Western Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Woodman Point (not Woodmans Point)

Woodmans Point is actually located in the suburb of Munster not Coogee - also recent locality boundary changes & the creation of North Coogee means that Port Coogee will actually be located in North Coogee, Western Australia not Coogee - article needs to be re-written to reflect actual boundaries and locations of landmarks etc. (Unsigned)

Good point. I have re-written a portion of the article to address the issues raised about Woodman Point & about Port Coogee. Also please note is "Woodman Point" not "Woodmans Point" --Lanyon (talk) 01:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transport

The issue about the train lines is not particularly relevant - given that if it was proposed (which it isn't) it would run through North Coogee and not Coogee. The reason why it isn't is because the existing rail reserve is not wide enough - as a passenger rail system can't utilise the current freight rail line and would require its own separate line. What was being considered was 'light rail' (which is a transport euphemism for a tram system). This would potentially run along Hampton Road through to Cockburn Road and terminate at Port Coogee (which is within North Coogee). Dan arndt (talk) 08:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarence Townsite

The Clarence townsite was not located behind Woodman Point but was actually located further to the south, just immediately north of Naval Base, around Mt Brown (which is located in the Beeliar Regional Park). Dan arndt (talk) 08:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not quite correct. The original "Clarence Townsite" was an area that included all of Woodman Point and extended a little to the North, South and East. This is illustrated in maps from the period. See pp14-15 "Cockburn The making of a community" Michael Bersan (Wescolour Press 1978) which reproduces part of a map from the period titled "Early Land Grants in the Metropolitan Area 1833". See also "Thomas Peel of Swan River" (Lady) Alexandra Hasluck (Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1965) I believe that what has then occurred is that over time the name "Clarence" was used as a general geographic reference in common usage that referred both to the townsite and the general surrounding region and as time moved on and parts of that region got more specific descriptions such as "Coogee Beach" and "Woodman Point" etc. the name "Clarence " gradually came to be applied only to a remaining portion in about the area that User:Dan arndt refers to. Sadly, there is no longer any portion of land in the region that is officially known as "Clarence" Another excellent example of the way the naming of localities in this area varies is to look at the location at which the "Henderson Naval Base" was to have been constructed when plans were drawn in 1913 -1915. (See plates bewteen pp 134 & 135 in M. Bersan's book noted above) The Naval Base was to have incorporated all of the "Clarence Townsite" currently within the locality of "Munster" and was to have extended just a little South into the locality currently named "Henderson" but on the plans it did not stretch as far South as the locality that is officially known as "Naval Base" today. --Lanyon (talk) 04:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I was referring to was Thomas Peel's actual 1830 camp site - it has been the subject of a recent archelogical investigation, which has offically documented the site as being located within the Beeliar Regional Park (around Mt Brown). The site has been assessed and classifed by the National Trust of Australia (WA). The site in 1830, consisted of approx 494 people/settlers (which constituted 33% of Western Australia's population) and comprised an assortment of structures. Dan arndt (talk) 01:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that Peel's personal campsite has been found in the vicinity of Mt Brown. This is separate to the Clarence Townsite. It is part of the problem that Peel's group of settlers faced that Peel took himself away from the settlers at Clarence, camped elsewhere and failed to exercise his authority and control at Clarence. Meanwhile settlers were in a distrissed state, a number died and others went to Governor Stirling and complained including complaints about Peel being elsewhere. Hasluck's book on Thomas Peel, which I read some years ago, describes the nature of the man and his life story with particular reference to his (failed) settlement scheme. --Lanyon (talk) 09:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the post above, have viewed the Heritage Council of Western Australia website with respect to a site they list as "Place No: 17868 Name: Peel Town Archaeological Sites" which claims that the site, near Mt Brown, is the original Clarence townsite (See http://register.heritage.wa.gov.au/viewplace.html?place_seq=40665&offset=3&view=description) and that the Clarence townsite at Woodman Point was not established until 1836 however that conflicts with other material, including the document "Early Land Grants in the Metropolitan Area 1833" which shows the Clarence Townsite at Woodman Point 3 years before 1836. An interesting confusion, perhaps worth a further look!!!! --Lanyon (talk) 10:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706102717/http://www.checkin.com.au/Perth/Coogee_Beach_Holiday_Park.htm to http://www.checkin.com.au/Perth/Coogee_Beach_Holiday_Park.htm

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) 20:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]