Talk:List of cities in Australia by population/Archive 1

Archive 1

Canberra-Queanbeyan

On the Statistical Division/District list Canberra and Queanbeyan are (correctly) listed together but has no rank. Canberra is also (correctly) listed by itself with a ranking. Queanbeyan should also be listed by itself with a ranking. Ronan.evans 04:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ronan. Canberra-Queanbeyan together is a statistical district, Canberra just by itself is a statistical division, but there is not a division or a district for Queanbeyan by itself as far as I can tell from the ABS's stats. They only count it as part of the whole conglomeration, so there's no figure for us to use. The note could be better written to state this more clearly. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 05:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Which Year?

The Sydney figure is from 2004, yet Melbourne's population is close to the 2006 figure.

Did Sydney's population drop from 1999 to 2004? The official population in 1999 (gathered in preparation for the Olympics) was rated as being just under 5million, and yet in the (apparently) 2004 based amount, the population had dropped. I don't believe that. What is the source of the figure? --lincalinca 04:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Sydney's pop certainly hasn't dropped and has never been "just under 5 million". This stat sounds like it includes Newcastle, Wollongong and just about any other place nearby that they could get their hands on! The quoted figures are sourced from the ABS (ie the official population statistics for Australia). Mustard Pot 13:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Newcastle photo

newcastle can stay (even though there were no objections). i'm not that fussed. seemed really petty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theabsenceofgod (talk • contribs)

I was simply trying to fill up the space we had there, and thought Australia's biggest non-capital city and 6th largest city would be a good inclusion - (soon enough, the Gold Coast will overtake Newcastle anyway, so you can replace the image when that happens). I'm happy for someone to take a better picture - the best photo of Newcastle is probably taken from Stockton on the other side of the river (you catch the ferry across). I thought that was the best that could be done on that side of Newcastle anyway. JROBBO 03:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

What do people think of adding Image:Kalgoorlie Town View DSC04493.JPG to the article to have an example of a small Australian city? Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 11:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Newcastle is still sixth and the data on the main page is wrong -- in that it is from an set of estimates. The 2007 Yearbook for the ABS has the 'real' figures -- and the Gold Caost can cool their jets, they didn't come close to the estimates: see http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/bb8db737e2af84b8ca2571780015701e/EF56710D9B64FFC2CA2572360000B7AA?opendocument

I think we should change to main page of cities...

Thuringowa

Hi Thuringowacityrep, according to the ABS, Townsville and Thuringowa are part of the one Urban Centre (area), unfortunately you can't separate them like that anymore than you can separate Albury-Wodonga. They are a physically contiguous urban area. Please check this document: [1], it is the one used as a reference for the article. You will see Townsville-Thuringowa listed as one entity. They have two Local Government Areas (which is the bottom list on this page), but just on Urban Centre. Thanks! I will correct this. - Aucitypops

hi, like I said before, where I made the changes is correct but at the top of the page I left it like you had because it does say urban area but in the list I changed it needs to show both Townsville and Thuringowa (see this page for Townsville http://www.lgp.qld.gov.au/docs/corporate/publications/planning/demographics/profiles/demographic_and_housing/townsville.pdf and go to this page for Thuringowa http://www.lgp.qld.gov.au/docs/corporate/publications/planning/demographics/profiles/demographic_and_housing/thuringowa.pdf )and you will see that I was correct. im not some idiot that doesn't know the facts, it needs to be how I had it ...also the ref you used is old I will put a new ref link on this page soon. there are 2 urban centres you have the Townsville CBD and Thuringowa CBD, there was a gap a lot of years ago (like Ayr and Brandon) but with growth the two grew to touch they are not 1 city it is 2 cities that look like one due to not having a gap and it is about time people got to know this the Government know. so again I will change it back to the correct facts, please do some extra research before believing what you read in old ref links if you would like more info please ask I have it all here thank you Thuringowacityrep 04:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thuringowacityrep, those figures you are giving are for the Local government areas, NOT the urban centres! That's why this list is divided into three parts. The figures for urban centre population have to represent those from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, or this list is meaningless!! They are not comparable! Please don't change them, Wikipedia should be about accuracy, why does it misrepresent the source? - Aucitypops

ok what ever ...fine ...again another user caome on here and knows everything by looking at old refs i will leave it like that for know but i will be back with new info and ref's ok .....very good Thuringowacityrep 04:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Redcliffe

Why isn't Redcliffe, Queensland listed?--149.135.46.1 12:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

For the same reason that Ipswich, Logan and the Redlands aren't listed, it's classed as part of Brisbane statistical division. Bongomanrae 02:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Freemantle

What about freemantle?

Looks like Freo is part of the Perth Stats District (On its own it is really small -- so is Perth on its own, LGA level -- that's local government area).

FrEmantle is a suburb of Perth. Kransky 02:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

2006 figures

Hi, the 2006 Regional population growth figures 3218.0 will be released by the ABS on tuesday 27th Feb 2007. Enabling this list to be updated. - Aucitypops 00:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I changed the figures in the 1st part. Major changes are Gold Coast surpassing Newcastle to become number 6, and Bathurst-Orange beings split into two (finally). - Aucitypops 04:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, those figures are estimates and don't match known residence figures reported in teh 2007 Yearbook: THE PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES FOR 2006 DO NOT MATCH THE CURRENT 2007 YEARBOOK FIGURES: http://0-www.abs.gov.au.library.newcastle.edu.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/bb8db737e2af84b8ca2571780015701e/EF56710D9B64FFC2CA2572360000B7AA?opendocument

seems to me QLD wants to overstate its claims... in several places... The shift of the gold Coast was a result of a redefintion of the SD specifically in Southeast QLD (see the notes in 3218.0). The more directly comparable unit would be the Statistical Division, in which the Gold Coast - Tweed comes in at around 540,00 and the Hunter at 612,000..

The latest Year Book 2007 contains only the 2005 figures, they're a year older than the ones in this article. here's a link: [2]

And the most directly comparable units are the Statistical Districts, as they're designed around specific urban areas. - Aucitypops 21:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to read the documents you are quoting. From 3218:

'2 To meet the conflicting demands for accuracy and timeliness there are several versions of sub-state/territory population estimates. Preliminary estimates are normally available eight months after the reference date (i.e. February), revised estimates a year later and final estimates after the following census. The population estimates in this publication are final for 2001, revised for 2005 (denoted 2005r) and preliminary for 2006 (denoted 2006p). The first series of population estimates based on the 2006 Census will be released in July 2007.'

In other words, the 2006 estimates are preliminary estimates. That is precisely why they are not included in the Yearbook. There are several assumptions that have to be made to reach these estimates, including assumed rates of 1) percent of people overseas, 2) assumed rates of death and birth, 3) assumed undercounting from the 2001 census, etc... etc... You're jumping the gun, mate.

So our choice for this article is 'timeliness' or 'accuracy'? I picked the most recent figures, they can be updated when they are confirmed. If you want to make the case to keep the older figures till then that is fine, but they should all come from the same source and everyone should agree on them. - Aucitypops 03:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

As to whether or not you should use districts or divisions. Both are based on specific urban areas -- you've ONLY includes preliminary district estimates (not more reliable figures) AND yet you claim to have also addressed both S Divisions and Districts. You've not.

Finally, esitmates for Divisions are inherently more stable due to the fact that they are larger. If your concern is about the degree of 'urbanness' within each area, perhaps you want to include population density figures (The Gold Coast is more dense at a LGA level).

We should use districts for all the cities except the capitals because only the capital cities have statistical divisions (except I notice tyhis may have changed for the Gold Coast, but I'll wait till we know what is and isn't included in that division before we change the population there). Hunter SD includes the whole Hunter Valley and it would be ludicrous to try to include all of that area in "Newcastle". - Aucitypops 03:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

OR -- you could just wait until the preliminary estimates are confirmed. The main problem is both areas are undergoing substantial growth at the same time distircts and divisions in the southeast of QLD are being re-drawn.

Never thought I would contribute this much... I'll register so you can see me...

On another note: I see the Central Coast listed as part of the Sydney Stats District. Is that right?

Another trick for the Gold Coast - is that the local government area is actually bigger then the statistical division. Those living in the northern part of Gold Coast City are part of the Brisbane statistical division and those along the western edge tend to be counted as hinterland people in the beaudesert division. The Twin towns issue at the southern end is also difficult to resolve. The one shopping street is in two different states with two different time zones. But Tweed Heads is merging along the new Freeway into adjacent towns further south - so need to stop somewhere - state border seems a pretty important edge for counting people.

cheers

Gosford?

I might be missing something really obvious here, but shouldn't Gosford be on this list? It has a population of 300,000 (according to its own wiki page), thus by my reckoning making it 9th biggest in Australia. Anyone explain?

I would like to say yes, but as I have found over time, people like to include all the cities around a major city to bring the numbers up and in this case Gosford is recognised as part of Sydney in the Australian cities population ranking article, I don't agree with this as it misleads people into thinking a city is bigger than it really is....but what can I do, hope this helps Thuringowacityrep 22:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not really anything to do with "people liking to include cities around a major city" - its what the ABS reports. They do have separate lists for "metropolitian areas" vs "statistical divisions" which is why we have separate lists as well. -- Chuq (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

City of Gosford is included at position 16 in list of LGA's. The Gosford LGA is incorporated into the Stat Division of Sydney so it doesn't show up seperately in the Stad Division / District list. It probably falls int he Central Coast Urban Centre but it may fall in the Sydney Urban Centre, you'd need to look at a map or something to work that one out.Garrie 03:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I grew up in Gosford Shire. Regardless of what the bureaucrats say. Locals have never, ever, ever considered it to be part of Sydney. Sydney was a place where Central Coast locals would visit, "Sydney people" was commonly heard as I was growing up to refer to people from Sydney. Just because a bureaucrat says it is part of Syndey doens't mean it really is. Try and tell anyone that Killcare, Copacabana, McMaster's Beach and Avoca are really Sydney's northern beaches and you'll be laughed at endlessly.

Likewise Canberrans and Queanbeyan. Don't read too much into it, it's just a statistical invention.

Restructure article for 2006 Census

Hi all, the work I have done borders on original research because all I've done is taken the Statistical Districts and Local Government Areas that were already ranked and updated them with the new population figures, I cannot attest to the fact that those cities that were the top 43 and 25 back in 2001 are still the top 43 and 25 cities. Additionally there is not any updated figures for Urban Centres (defined as a population cluster of over 1000 people (pages 64-65). The 2001 urban centres figures were only released in March 2003.

I propose the following:

• remove the very out of date Urban Centres section until new figures are eventually released from the 2006 census.
• cull the Statistical Districts section to the top 30 to avoid mistakes in missing Districts which will have made it into the top 43 without us knowing, then when the ABS releases a proper analysis or another source like a newspaper does the research independently we can then update it to go right down to the top 50.
• cull the Local Government Areas section to be the top 20 for the same reason.

Thoughts? WikiTownsvillian 14:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Use current 2007 Yearbook data: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/bb8db737e2af84b8ca2571780015701e/EF56710D9B64FFC2CA2572360000B7AA?opendocument

Urban Centre/Locality data (UCL) data has been discontinued by the ABS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kransky (talk • contribs) 02:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Populations out of date

Some of the populations on this page seem to be out of date (i.e. don't match up with the cities' populations on their individual Wiki pages) and this is effecting the rankings. For example, Orange is listed as larger than Dubbo, which it isn't, according to the cities' individual Wiki pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.180.1.224 (talk • contribs)

Hi, the population figures on this page are according to the 2006 Census, there are no figures which are more up to date than this, so individual wiki articles should be updated to comply with the populations and rankings on this page. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 12:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Canberra Pic

Why Doesn't someone add a Canberra Skyline picture to the pictures? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.130.202 (talk) 19:17, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Or Hobart? I've added a Canberra pic that I found at Wikimedia Commons. A representative image of Hobart is a bit harder to find --AussieLegend 01:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

reply to anon editor

RE: Edits - Wikitownsvillian - before reverting an edit - check the links provided by the edit - THEY ARE ACCURATE - latest ABS figures! 2006 CENSUS!

reply: huh? what are you talking about... previous reversions were inaccuracies and according to your history you haven't edited this article before. Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 10:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Geelong

I would like to suggest a more realistic representation of the size of the Geelong region is the Barwon (Statistical Division) figure of 259,015.

If for example Gosford is counted to be part of Sydney, then certainly the entire Barwon region (in which locals consider Geelong to be the city) is an equally fair figure for greater Geelong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Challengeclub (talk • contribs) 13:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No, and the reason is consistency. If you want to have the whole of Barwon for Geelong you'll need to add the whole of Hunter for Newcastle, the whole of Illawarra for Wollongong, the whole of Northern Statistical Division for Townsville ... we can't just cherry-pick stats for this page. - Aucitypops (talk) 05:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hervey Bay Stats

Hervey Bay population stats are in correct i believe as i live in The Bay and the council webpage and the welcome sign into hervey bay state 52000 population i will be getting a copy of the stats from the council chambers tomorrow also a pic of the welcome to Hervey Bay Sign also the artical states they are rough numbers. Jay2k (talk) 08:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

As indicated by heading of the section that you edited, the population figures used in this article are the populations of Capital city Statistical Divisions and Statistical Districts. For the Hervey Bay Statistical District, this figure is 48,157 as you can see by looking here. This is the same link that is next to Hervey Bay in the article. The population figure used in the Hervey Bay, Queensland article doesn't have to be the same as the figure used in this article.

Incidentally, I had a look at the figure that you used when you edited a few days ago and found that it was actually the the population figure for the Hervey Bay City Council Local Government Area (LGA).[3] The population figure for the Hervey Bay, Queensland article is the population for the town, which is not the same as the LGA. At the reference that you provided[4], if you add the figures under Population in Selected Locations (ABS, 2006) you'll see that they add up to a different figure to that presented as the Hervey Bay Population. This is not an error. If you follow the links provided on the page you can check the figures for each locality. These are the figures that the council uses.

Although I've used the figure that you get when you add up the figures under Population in Selected Locations (ABS, 2006) as the population for Hervey Bay, this is probably not correct as the article identifies a number of towns that are "outside the Hervey Bay area but within the city council boundaries". If you remove these, as probably should happen, the population is only 43,652.

Please also note that the ABS is not wrong. The figures used are the result of actual counts, are checked and rechecked and considered authoritive.

I have reverted the article back to the correct figure. Please do not change it again. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

New QLD councils

surely the new townsville city council makes it on to the top 25 lga list there is definitly more the 149 000 with townsville and thuringowa combined? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.164.132 (talk) 11:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think the case can be made that none of the recent QLD council amalgamations should be reflected in this list until official stats are released by the ABS, which is yearly. Trying to update them by simply adding up the old figures in some cases and trying to source them from elsewhere in others is in my opinion bordering on original research. I'm going to take the list back to how it was. - Aucitypops (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be reverted, even though it is original research, the figures are from the ABS 2006 census which are the exact same figures used for other councils. I think the ones which sourced ABS statistics should be reverted and Toowooba Regional Council should use ABS statistics. Mainly because they only update the figures every 4 years after the census is conducted and as it would be inaccurate to not list the new councils when they are now in operation for an up-to-date resource like Wikipedia. Since the amalgamated councils are merely a joining of existing councils, the research directly supports the information as it is presented (excluding Toowoomba Regional Council). Life Academy (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Figures for Local Government Areas are released yearly, and have any interim boundary changes taken into account (at least that's what's occurred for the concil revisions in NSW over the last few years). And unless I'm mistaken the councils haven't merely been combined into supercouncils, in some cases the boundaries have shifted substantially as well. Look at the old vs. new boundaries of Logan, for example, it's at least twice the size and has taken chunks of Beaudesert and the Gold Coast. Until the statistical agency comes along and recalculates the numbers, anything we could come up with is original research. - Aucitypops (talk) 10:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The rationale documents for the mergers indicated the population. As they were in a published government report I don't see any problem with using those figures for the new councils. Another question is the age old chestnut of how we are defining "cities" - if we use it purely in LGA terms, then Bundaberg, Mackay, Rockhampton, Cairns, Toowoomba and Sunshine Coast are now Regions, leaving only Mount Isa, Townsville, Logan, Brisbane, Ipswich and Gold Coast as well as Redland (formerly a Shire) are cities within Queensland. Orderinchaos 01:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The ones I added to the list had no boundary other boundary changes other than merging, however you are correct about Gold Coast losing suburbs to Logan City resulting in population loss so I am convinced it should remain for the time being since it may not reflect the positions accurately.Life Academy (talk) 11:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Townsville city had no boundary redraws it was just a combination, however if other councils did it would still make the list wrong by not including them so yeh good idea leaving it as it is for now but maybe a note that this data is from before the amalgamations? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.164.132 (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand the stance of wanting to add the amalgamated townships into the listing, but the fact is, the amalgamation won't be federally recognised until the ABS recognises it, which could be a while off. Possibly months. --rm 'w avu 11:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

A note at the bottom is a good idea just to inform people that the list will change eventually. - Aucitypops (talk) 04:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Regional population growth 3218.0, from which the LGA populations for this article were originally sourced, is due for release on Monday 31st March. We'll find out if the changes have been taken into account then (it's doubtful they've had time though). - Aucitypops (talk) 04:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the figures for 2007 are in and unfortunately for the Queenslanders it seems their council changes came in too late this year. I guess we'll find out next year, folks. Here is the raw Excel: [5] easily crunchable into order of population. I'll update the list starting tonight, with prominent side notes that the QLD councils have been merged. - Aucitypops (talk) 06:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Finished. Thanks also to Easel3 who did the SDs. - Aucitypops (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Brisbane Population

On the offcial Brisbane page the population is 1,993,872. Yet it is less on here and when i added the ref link that proved it plus the correct population wikipedia deleted it even though Brisbane propbably has more than 2 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pozei11 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I assume that the "offcial Brisbane page" [sic] you're referring to is the Brisbane article. The population figure used there isn't properly cited and a check of the ABS website, which is where we get our official figures from, shows that the population of the Brisbane Statistical District is actually only 1,763,131[6], so it appears to be incorrect as well. The information used in this article is, as the citation indicates, from the 2008 Australian Year Book, which is why it was reverted.

A check of the page history shows that of the two references you provided, the first was deleted by you[7] and the other was located in a completely different section of the document after the population of Perth.[8] I assume it was deleted because it unrelated to Perth and was apparently a random link. In any case, both links were for the Brisbane LGA, which only has a population of 11,573, and not the Brisbane SD so they were invalid. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

"shows that the population of the Brisbane Statistical District is actually only 1,763,131[5], "

Please remember that when it says that statistic that only includes the people born in Australia you should include ones born overseas aswell as they are residents of Brisbane —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pozei11 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't only include people born in Australia. It excludes overseas visitors, not people born overseas. It includes people who live in Brisbane regardless of where they were born. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"In the 1996 Census, Overseas Visitors were those people who indicated they would be usually resident in Australia for less than six months. For the 2001 Census, this has been increased to less than one year." [9] I assume it's similar for the 2006 census. We're talking about tourists, backpackers and short stay workers, who may simply have happened by statistical chance to be in Brisbane on census night. Orderinchaos 01:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Land Area of Metropolitan Areas and Urban Areas

Is there an easy way to find the land area of each of these metro and urban areas? I ask, because the U.S. urban area pages have both the population and land area listed (as long as density), and it's very helpful. I'd hope that someone would be able to do that with the metro, urban, and local government areas, here. --Criticalthinker (talk) 07:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of the raw spreadsheets on the ABS website have the area figure at the top. I can see if I can find some for you. -Aucitypops (talk) 08:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

How to find areas:

1. Go to "2006 Community profiles by location"

2. Search for your desired area (e.g. Sydney)

3. Scroll down to select the desired category (e.g. Urban Centre/Locality)

4. Click "View community profiles"

5. Click "Basic community profile"

6. Download the compressed .xls spreadsheet and open it.

7. Click on "B01".

8. Area figure is on the second line.

As you can see it's a bit of a pain. It would be nice if someone could write a script to extract the figures automatically! I don't know how to do that. - Aucitypops (talk) 08:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Update

3218.0 - Regional Population Growth, Australia, 2007-08 has now been released. Can we now start to update the values? I was going to update the capital cities but then it would just look half-arsed. -Depor23 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC).

Good idea, I guess I'll give it a start. - Aucitypops (talk) 09:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)