Talk:Collins Street, Melbourne

message: Would I be right in assuming that the 'Paris end', which I have written about, is closer to the Treasury? Or is it closer to Docklands?
In fact, that whole Exhibition-Collins-Spring-Flinders Lane block looks very 'Paris'.
EuropracBHIT 12:58, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Ends' of Collins Street

message: I am not sure that the area mentioned as the financial heart of Melbourne in the article is completely true. Allthough the stock exchange is in that locallity there are more large buildings as one apporaches Spring St. Hobo 02:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Financial Heart 

message: There's a few sentences that could do with some rewording just to improve the tone of the article, because sentences are bordering on POV. Few exaples: "best known street", "finest Victorian era buildings", "modern development has destroyed some of the European flavour", "long been the financial heart", "grandest examples were lost to the wrecker's ball" invincible 08:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These are not POV, they are common knowledge.  Find me one other street in Melbourne which can lay claim to being the city's financial heart.  Collins is it.  --Biatch 02:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Encyclopedic tone

message: The lack of an English Wikipedia article as an indication of a lack of existence is a logical fallacy of such proportions that it approaches (if not outright earns) ridiculousness.— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it is a logical fallacy.  But why are you pointing that out here?  You don't think anyone is even suggesting that the "lack of an English Wikipedia article [is] an indication of a lack of existence", do you?  If so, what did anyone write that caused you to understand that that was intended? Back in grade school, if we had, say, two Bobs in the class, we had to come up with an alternate nickname, like Bobby, for one of them.   But in classes where there was only one Bob, we just called him Bob.  We didn't disambiguate just in case another Bob would join us midyear or something... we only disambiguated when necessary to distinguish from another Bob in the class.WP follows the same approach for similar reasoning.  Just because "Bob" or "Collins Street" is ambiguous in the real world, we only bother to disambiguate if there are other uses of that name in the relevant name space, be it a class roster or WP title name space.  --Born2cycle (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You said as much in the comment to which I'm replying here: "". Erik seems to be saying the same thing, although he's more verbose (and probably more tactful). Regardless, Wikipedia isn't a classroom (and it's certainly not your grade school class!). I'm starting to gain some real insight into some past history here, though. It's clear to me that you're taking the advice at PRECISION to an absurd level. Avoiding "over-precision" is not an absolute, and I'd argue that saying "Collins street, Melbourne" is not even remotely over-precise regardless (in contrast to "Collins street", at least, which in the context of an encyclopedia would clearly indicate the topic of Collins street in general).— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: But with the Bobs there is a different set of issues, of course, so it might be reasonable to have a different solution. In the class with only one Bob, nobody there is thinking "what about my uncle Bob?" or "what about the Bob who is not in this class?" But obviously Wikipedia has a more global scope than your grade school class. To me, the main issue is that the title of an article says something about the subject; it says that this is the primary topic for this term. When we entitle it Chapel Street, we imply that this is in some sense the Chapel Street, simply by using that title. Is it true that the Melbourne one is really the main one? I don't know, but if it isn't and we move the article we are misleading our readers, who will think, for example, that the one in Melbourne is more significant in some important way than the one in New Haven. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We we entitle an article Chapel Street we imply that it is the Chapel Street no more than when we entitle that article Chapel Street, Melbourne and redirect Chapel Street to it.Whether Chapel Street, Melbourne redirects to Chapel Street or Chapel Street redirects to Chapel Street, Melbourne, we're suggesting the article is about both the Chapel Street and the Chapel Street, Melbourne, to the same degree.  In terms of primary topic or being "the one", there is no difference between a given term being the topic's article title or a redirect to the topic's article.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you're trying to do here and just above; I think everyone understands your position—I'm pretty sure I do, in any case. I disagree, obviously; simply stating the opposite of what I stated is not going to get us anywhere, so perhaps this has run its course. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

text: I know Ohms law has withdrawn from participation in this discussion, but I want to respond to his last point for the record.  I asked him to cite something that anyone wrote that caused him to understand that what was intended to be conveyed was the idea that "lack of an English Wikipedia article [is] an indication of a lack of existence".  He responded by quoting my words: "Since there is no other notable "Third Avenue" with an article on WP.."I'm saying the lack of existence of an article suggests a lack of notability.  It's impractical to assume otherwise in deciding titles because assuming otherwise would mean requiring raising, questioning and investigating the issue of notability of not only the given topic in a given RM discussion, but also of every other potential use of the name in question in the real world.  If that occurs, great, but it's unreasonable to require it.  Not requiring it means that it's reasonable to assume that other uses of a given term are not notable if articles for them do not exist.  This is done routinely in RM discussions every day.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Logical Fallacy

message: Note: There is a proposal at WT:AURD#Move_articles_to_bracket_disambiguation to rename this article (and others) to conform to the WP:AURDNAME guideline – specifically, using brackets instead of a comma for disambiguation. - Evad37 [talk] 08:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation style 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Collins Street, Melbourne. 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/20120311033535/http://www.fashionising.com/forums/t--PRADA-Australia-flagship-store-Collins-Street-3007-1.html to http://www.fashionising.com/forums/t--PRADA-Australia-flagship-store-Collins-Street-3007-1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified