Talk:Melbourne Star

message: Does anyone have a more recent photo? It's almost complete.Wai Hong (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now added, feel free to add any further details yourself  Melburnian (talk) 09:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Images?

message: In the Reconstruction section there was a reference to the likely opening date, quoting a private individual self-described as "a Docklands resident and a budding science communicator". I have replaced that with a mainstream reference from The Age newspaper. 
Have dated the change of name to Melbourne Star, April 2013, based on examining the source code of the Melbourne Star website to see when they updated it with the new name. Awaiting notification of exact date from the owner's representative. Melbourne3163 (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Update re the change of name to Melbourne Star. The name was changed on 27 April 2013, as advised via an email from the PR firm for the wheel. Not sure how to provide a reference for this as it is an email to me, not a public document. The PR person advised they did not issue a press release for the name change. Melbourne3163 (talk) 09:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reconstruction section 

message: I requested that the undiscussed move from 'Melbourne Star' to 'Melbourne Star Observation Wheel' be reverted at WP:RM 'Requests to revert undiscussed moves' as follows:
[Melbourne Star Observation Wheel -> Melbourne Star]... Moved without discussion, original name was correct per WP:COMMONNAME and as used in running text on official website , and per London Eye, Singapore Flyer, Star of Nanchang, etc. Use of 'Observation Wheel' would only be appropriate if this were simply 'Melbourne Observation Wheel' (per Suzhou Ferris Wheel, etc) NOT 'Melbourne Star', or possibly if further disambiguation was necessary (as it was with the previous name, Southern Star Observation Wheel), which it clearly is not. EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE in :Category:Ferris wheels and its sub-categories is 100% consistent with this rationale. Thanks. –
27.55.199.195 (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name

message: Is it really relevant for an encyclopedia to record minor glitches that occur in a privately owned business? For example, the 24 January 2014, entry that records that this business has had a software problem. Sure, record things like safety issues but let's not descend into some chronicle of mundane matters. Cheers. Melbourne3163 (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately for the owners, this wheel has made the news far more often for its problems than for its successes. The problems are really what make it notable. HiLo48 (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's an encyclopedia 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Melbourne Star. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.waterfrontcity.com.au/Home/tabid/56/mid/465/newsid465/40/Default.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified