Talk:Parks and gardens of Melbourne

message: In the suburb of Albert Park, St Vincent Gardens is a park of national significance which provides an example of nineteenth century residential development around a large landscaped square. It was influenced by similar urban design in London, but on such a scale unparalleled in Australia.
Do we have a source for this bold statement? Factoid Killer 00:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. The words quoted above are mine paraphrasing the Heritage register citation. The Source for this is the citation in the National Trust of Australia and Victorian Heritage Register. Please read the St Vincent Gardens entry which also quotes from the citation. --Takver 06:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

message: This article is an overview article of Melbourne Parks and gardens and contains mainly geographical information on the different parks and gardens, and maybe some very brief details of the historical or social importance of each park derived from individual park articles. It should not require references or sources. In the detailed articles on particular parks or gardens you should expect to find the relevant sources or references. --Takver 07:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree and suggest that if we want to list parks and gardens in Melbourne, we should create a dedicated article to list them. This article regards the subject matter of "parks and gardens in Melbourne" and as such shall contain any relevant information pertaining to the said subject matter. This does not include information regarding individual parks and gardens themselves, rather, information pertaining to Melbourne's parks and gardens as a whole. Nick carson (talk) 04:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: The revert of edits made by myself by Michael Johnson at 00:15, December 2, 2008, while justified under WP policy are not helpful towards the inclusion of such information within this article. While my edits were unreferenced, they were hardly written in a non-neutral point of view hand. To avoid an edit war I request that my edits be reverted and we can provide references for any challenged assertions. Much of the information I included does not need to be referenced in accordance with WP policy and should go largely unchallenged as the majority were "blue sky" assertions. My impatience for editors who consistently tag and revert is wearing thin, editors must allow information to be referenced and contribute such, tagging and reverting is counter productive, contribute, don't tag and revert. Nick carson (talk) 04:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I must say I agree with Michael Johnson. The topic of use of indigenous plants compared with exotic plants is worth including, but I'd suggest sticking with material referenced from reliable sources to help avoid POV and factual errors due to over-generalisation. Melburnian (talk) 05:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

text: mmm. I can see some of your contribution, Nick, as valuable, and I think your essential point is a valuable one to make in the article. However I agree with Melburnian that some unreferenced POV has resulted, eg "The popularity of non-native gardens in Melbourne has become a massive problem" - you may be very right in this but this statement should come from someone notable with some related expertise to be useful in the article or be deleted as POV. --Takver (talk) 11:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree based on a few matters: It's misrepresentative of the content to use such sentences as examples as there is only a portion of them included in the overall content, as such if they are deemed POV they should be removed. Such removal of POV sentences or statements is not justification for the removal of entire chunks of content, which if unreferenced, should be tagged until such time as references can be added or sourced. Removing content added by any user where sections of it can be removed or tagged is unproductive. The content I added must be reverted, any statements considered POV by the consensus shall be removed and any remaining unreferenced statements that are challenged shall be tagged until they can be referenced. And hey! If anyone feels like doing some real content editing/copyediting then source those references yourself to progress the given content rather than placing an obstacle in the way of contributions to WP. It's not like any of the content I added was untrue. Nick carson (talk) 11:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are ample precedents regarding the removal of unsorced POV material. How about you doing some "real editing" and dig up some sources for a change, instead of just adding your POV then slamming other editors when it is removed. Just to repeat something you must have heard before: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Reading your personal page you apparently have a problem with this. Look at it this way. You can't join a soccer team then when playing a game pick up the ball and run. That is another game. If you want to edit Wikipedia you must play by the rules. There are plenty of other places on the net where you can publish your POV. I say this in the hope you do change your attitude, because you do some good editing, and the edits you add are often important and interesting. But they must be verified and sourced. --Michael Johnson (talk) 23:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of information regarding non-native plantlife