Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian places/Archive 3

message: I'd like to set some clear, correct definitions for "Melbourne", theres a hell of alot of discussion involving it.
The name Melbourne can mean any of the following:
:Melbourne (suburb) - the suburb that comprises the City/CBD/Hoddle Grid and several surrounding areas of land.
::Its postcode is 3000, and 3004 in the area south of the Yarra River. Surrounding areas include; up Elizabeth Street, south of Brunton Av and the entire Botanic Gardens.
:Greater Melbourne - the urban area that has expanded and thus, surrounds the City/CBD/Hoddle Grid.
::Could technically be updated every few months with new developments occuring in the outter suburbs, with new legislation this 'urban sprawl' will be stopped and the suburbs will slowly become more dense with more high rise.
:Melbourne - the City/CBD/Hoddle grid and the surrounding urban area combined to reference the entire city in the state of Victoria.
::When people say 'Melbourne' this is usually what they are referring to, the terms Greater Melbourne and Melbourne as a suburb are used far less frequently, this is also what you would use to describe the entire city in an encyclopedia.
:Suburb (Also refered to as Locality)  - In Australia it means an area of land occupied or unoccupied that has been given a name(s) and divided up under local council/shire authority with set boundaries.
::The postcodes of suburbs can spill over into the next suburb and so in many cases there is a seperate boundary called the post code boundary. There is actually a suburb for every piece of land in Australia, usually the more densly populated the section of land is, the smaller the suburb. It is technically refered to as a locality, but everyone knows them as suburbs, they mean the same thing.
I might be a bit behind the 8 ball so to speak, but I think we should figure out what to do with these other definitions, should they have articles of themselves? I feel the Melbourne (suburb) is reasonable, as if someone wants to know about the city in general they'll find the 'Melbourne' article first, then if you want to go into further detail the suburb article is also there, however small, the term Greater Melbourne dosent really need an article. It would be possible for neither of these terms to have articles as long as they're mentioned somwhere in the main Melbourne article.
It should be noted that the Melways incorporates: Suburb Boundaries, Post Code Boundaries, Locality names, Local council/shire boundaries among many other things that for me make it a very reliable source of information on this topic. Also, as I read earlier, Jolimont is actually a locality within the suburb of East Melbourne, other examples include; the locality of Glenferrie within the suburb of Hawthorn, locality-Greythorn suburb-Balwyn North, locality-Regent suburb-Preston, locality-Newmarket suburb-Flemington, locality-Bennettswood suburb-Burwood. (Localities don't have boundaries, they're just names of general areas in some cases as small as an area of shops allong a road near a train station, and in some cases used to be small suburbs that later became part of the larger suburb but many residents will still use the locality name, the post office knows all of these names and as long as they have the same post code as they're larger suburb its okay to use them as adresses! Look it up in the Melways.
Thanks for reading! Nick carson 16:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitions of "Melbourne"

message: It was noted in the Talk: Melbourne page that there are 349 articles that link to Melbourne, Victoria, the "vast majority" of which would need to be altered to link to Melbourne if we decide to adopt the former name for the article about the suburb.  On that matter, I note the following:
* Many of those 349 articles are user pages, which I don't think it is necessary for us to change.
* Some of articles (e.g. Bank Place, Melbourne) should actually link to an article about the suburb, not the metropolis, and would therefore not need to be changed.  Conversely, they should be changed if we adopt a different title for the suburb article.
* With many of the articles, it will not be clear whether a change is required or not.  For example, the Gough Whitlam article notes that he was born in Melbourne.  Is this referring to the suburb or the metropolis?  I assume that if he was born in Dandenong, the article would say so.  But if he was born in the Royal Melbourne Hospital in Parkville, for example, the article might just say Melbourne.
* Many of the links should be changed anyway (and I have done a few).  There is little point in an article referring to Melbourne which redirects to Melbourne, when it could just say Melbourne in the first place and avoid a redirect.
I am not saying that the number that would need to be changed is small.  But perhaps it is probably not as many as the "vast majority", and many should be changed to avoid redirects no matter what is decided.Philip J. Rayment 12:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if they were all changed, new ones would be created all the time.  You can't disambiguate the pages in that way because the two names do nothing to tell you which one is which.  To someone from outside Wikipedia, there is no logical reason why Melbourne would mean the metropolis and Melbourne, Victoria would mean the city centre/suburb.  -- Chuq 06:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To an outsider, is there any logical reason why Melbourne would mean the metropolis and City of Melbourne would mean the local government area?  Philip J. Rayment 10:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Melbourne is a simple name that can be used for several differently sized areas. In this case, we use the most common use of the name. "City of Melbourne", on the other hand is reasonably clearly an official name of a local government entity, which happens in this case to be significantly smaller than the metropolis. The metropolis/"suburb" distinction is a bit harder, but ", Victoria" definitely doesn't help. In fact, I would go further than Chuq and say that there is no logical reason to someone, even within Wikipedia, why one is the metropolis and one the "suburb", other than as a quirky result of naming convention that was definitely not intended for this purpose. JPD (talk) 11:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some comments on the <nowiki>[[Melbourne, Victoria]]</nowiki> redirect 

message: Tally - SS=1 S=5 WS=1 O=3 SO=1 Total 'votes' = 11
Score = 0.364 (4/11)
*Support a good option if people refuse to call it a suburb SauliH 14:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Melbourne city centre

message: Tally - SS=2 S=1 WS=1 WO=1 O=4 Total 'votes' = 9
Score = 0.0 (0/9)
*Strong Support for the reasons stated when I proposed it (ok it was Hesperian who nominated this form, but I'll take credit for the idea :) ) SauliH 14:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Melbourne, Victoria (suburb)

message: Tally - SS=1 S=4 O=4 SO=1 Total 'votes' = 10
Score = 0.0 (0/10)
*Strong support The reason the Saint Kilda Road section is included in the "Melbourne" name (see the map someone linked to) appears to be due to its business use. --Scott Davis Talk 04:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Melbourne central business district

message: Tally - S=1 WS=2 N=1 WO=1 O=4 Total 'votes' = 9
Score = -0.556 (-5/9)
*Support a good option if people refuse to call it a suburb SauliH 14:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Melbourne inner city

message: Tally - WS=3 O=7 Total 'votes' = 10
Score = -1.1 (-11/10)
*Oppose SauliH 14:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Melbourne (suburb)

message: Tally - SS=1 S=1 WO=1 O=4 SO=2 Total 'votes' = 9
Score = -1.111 (-10/9)
*Strong Support It specifies the region (CBD, not metropolitian area), does not use the problematic "suburb" term, clarifies that it refers to the one in Victoria (not any other Melbourne), and ends in ", Victoria", which fits the naming conventions of the Melbourne WikiProject. -- Chuq 03:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Melbourne CBD, Victoria

message: Tally - S=2 N=2 WO=1 O=1 SO=5 Total 'votes' = 11
Score  = -1.273 (-14/11)
*Neutral I am reconsidering this one after some of the discussion SauliH 14:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Melbourne, Victoria

message: Tally - WS=1 N=1 O=7 Total 'votes' = 9
Score = -1.444 (-13/9)
*Oppose SauliH 14:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Melbourne (locality)

message: Did I miss any?
:I added Melbourne CBD, Victoria.  Also since this is WP:Australian places are we to take the result of this as a suggestion for naming of similar central regions of other major cities in Australia? -- Chuq 03:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that the result of this discussion when/if it happens will set a precedent. So yes, I would expect it to do that. SauliH 03:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added "Melbourne central business district" for similar reasons to Chuq's addition. --Scott Davis Talk 04:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I suppose this would be a precedent, but it is worth considering each case on its own merits. JPD (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment: New York's central suburb is not Manhattan but Midtown Manhattan, which has its own page.  We seem to have a semantic debate here in that Americans call these areas neighbourhoods, and use the term "suburb" to refer to the small local government areas which grew rapidly due to White flight in the second half of the 20th century. Thus the Americans use the term "suburb" to refer to areas outside of the large central local government areas that had been established in the late 19th and early 20th century.  This usage is not Australian usage, and there is no reason we should follow it.  On the other hand I have no particular objection to "Melbourne central business district", where the problem appears to be, unique to Melbourne, that St Kilda Road is included while Southbank, Victoria is excluded, producing an odd shape. --Grahamec 00:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no article for Auckland CBD, however.  I don't mind Melbourne, Victoria.  From an architectural and postcode sense, at least, the distinction is very important.  I read a website by Monash University a few years back which had profiles on all of the inner city suburbs of Melbourne as Kew, Victoria etc.  and what do you know, for the area the Melways defines as Melbourne, they had an article called "Melbourne, Victoria" which talked about the history, development etc of the area.  There is also a book by Architectural historian Miles Lewis on the history of development of Melbourne which treats "Melbourne, Victoria" as a distinct entity from its inner and outer suburbs. Even property sites like realestate.com.au and domain.com.au have profiles on the suburb with postcodes 3000, and if you search for properties in the suburb it doesn't bring up anything in Greater Melbourne, just the CBD, Royal Parade and St Kilda Road areas .... why this is even a debate I have no idea ... sigh. --Biatch 00:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that in Manhattan and Toronto there are existing names that people use to distinguish the central neighbourhood, whereas in Sydney and Melbourne we don't have anything other than CBD or city centre. The same goes for Auckland, and this issue hasn't been dealt with there. There is no article yet on the CBD/city centre, and instead references to "Auckland city centre" in Mechanics Bay, for example, are directed to the main Auckland article. This would be like directing references to Melbourne 3000/4 to Melbourne, which we obviously don't want. I don't think anyone is saying that it is not a distinct entity, but all in all the examples you give it is clear from the context that "Melbourne" means the smaller area. Here, there is no such context, and whatever is used to disambiguate should make that context clear, not simply take over a sensible redirect. JPD (talk) 11:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I brought up the conflict between these two infoboxes Template:Infobox Town AU and Template:Infobox Australian Town on the Template talk:Infobox Australian Town page. cj brought up the previous discussion on the Infobox Australian Town. 
I am of the feeling that this should get resolved soon, before a whole lot more towns have either of these infoboxes in place. It is in the best interests of us all to create the consistency now rather than wait and have a ton of work to repair at a later time. 
I like a lot of detail in the infobox, but at the same time the boxes do get long in the layout of the page. SO yes I am in two minds, and could go either way. However, I feel a decision needs to happen one way or the other.SauliH 04:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. We need to set a standard. In addition to this infobox,  and  need to be rationalised into .--cj | talk 08:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the conflict in December 2005 referred to by cj was a conflict of town to city info box.  I still do not see that the city info box can usefully be applied to towns and no way forward was suggested.--Golden Wattle  talk 00:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The reason  (which spawned off a number of others) was created some time ago was that the Australian Suburb one was inadequate to the needs of Wikiproject Perth, and the new one is certainly quite flexible. The downside of standardisation nationwide is that, for instance, public transport systems vary across all of the cities, as does nomenclature and state-based things which are important for such an infobox. Orderinchaos (t|c) 04:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Please note that this discussion has lead to the designing of a universal Infobox which will replace the City/town/suburb infoboxes. Check out progress at Template talk:Infobox Australian Place and weigh in on some of the planning. It will provide greater consistency of style and content between the states and types of localities. A bot is being built to change the existing pages from their infoboxes to the new one.SauliH 04:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just in case anyone's reading this now, this was resolved some time ago when the  template was fully implemented. Orderinchaos 23:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox template conflict 

message: This appears to be an advertisement.  I am reluctant to move it to a proper Sydney suburb name, because I don't think it is a suburb, and it probably should just be deleted.--Grahamec 07:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have merged it into Campbelltown, New South Wales. The article didn't actually say which Campbelltown it related to - I've used your comment here to decide. --Scott Davis Talk 14:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Park central, campbelltown]]

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.  B2T2 16:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: Hello, Wikiproject Australia places people. Just popping in because I've just speedy-failed Miami, Queensland for good article status, as it is far from it. I've already laid out at the talk page why I failed it, but I think more work is needed. Hopefully some of you will help out at the article, and someone please try to explain to User:Nathannoblet (who also nominated Gold Coast, Queensland for GA, which I'm going to hold off failing for now) what exactly is expected of GAs? Thanks and have a great day. Cheers – Chacor 05:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello 

message: I find the naming system for Australian places extremely confusing. For example, there is Marion, South Australia and City of Marion, but no explanation as to how they are different. Is there a difference? Specifically, do they cover different areas? -- Kjkolb 07:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The former is about the suburb of Marion. The second is about the municipality/local council named after that suburb. This should be fairly clear from the content of the respective articles. Rebecca 08:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: As an American you might need to dig a little deeper to understand what is meant by Local Government Area. The closest American equivalent to it would be 'county'. Marion, South Australia is a suburb of that 'county'. Australia does have a very clear naming system which is detailed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian places. Have a great day.SauliH 13:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your responses. Yes, that particular example does make me look like an idiot. I was checking out numerous similar articles in a category and just chose ones with the same name, not ones that I had read. SauliH, that does help some. I have another question. Why do the local government areas not have the name of the state following them? See :Category:Local Government Areas of South Australia. For example, the article is named City of Marion, not City of Marion, South Australia. This follows the style of the towns of South Australia and the style of counties in the U.S. I looked at the U.K., but they don't seem to have states, so just the name of the county is used. Luckily, they have relatively unique names. Besides standardization and making it clearer what the article is about, there is the matter of disambiguation, as there are 30 other cities named Marion, which can all be called City of Marion. Judging by search results, they frequently are  called City of Marion. The addition of "South Australia" eliminates the need for a disambiguation link at the top of the article. -- Kjkolb 18:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing naming system 

message: The words Hobson's Bay was previously redirecting to City of Hobsons Bay, but I removed it and redirected it to "Port Phillip" as the body of water known as Hobson's Bay is what the council was named after.  Any comments on whether this is the correct thing to do ?  I am not sure, since there does not seem to be a real need to write a huge article about the body of water which is a small part of Port Phillip Bay.  --Biatch 00:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have it redirecting to the most logical one for now. Later I think we can assume there could be an article on Hobson's Bay, the geographical feature, but that will probably be many years from now. — Donama 07:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like a good candidate for a disambiguation page to me. Rebecca 08:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really know which is right, which probably means a dab page is the right idea. At the moment, Hobsons Bay (City of Hobsons Bay) and Hobson's Bay (Port Phillip) get me to different articles, which is not a desirable outcome, especially since the Port Phillip article refers to the body of water as Hobsons Bay. --Scott Davis Talk 13:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects for place names 

message: City of Dubbo is currently listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City of Dubbo.  I was under the impression that it was policy to establish separate LGA pages from town pages.--Grahamec 03:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for notifying. With the changes made we should retain the article stub.SauliH 06:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate LGA pages