Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Melbourne/Archive 2

message: I think I may change the progress indicators to a more simplified Not yet begun, Planning, Stub-building, Advanced article building, Finished thing instead of giving a percentage, which is just too hard to calculate, too subjective, and becomes outdated too quickly. It would be too hard for me to reappraise the numbers often enough for them to reamain meaningful, no matter how pretty they look. I'll keep the progress bars though, because they make us seem more professional than we really are :P Unless someone wants to fix the numbers themselves? Anyone? Well, it was nice while it lasted. TPK 04:59, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea... do you want me to update my template to reflect this? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:46, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progress percentages 

message: Not sure if you guys will find this useful, but I've created a new template based on your (quite excellent) progress box! It's Template:Progress. Just use .
Here's an example:

Ta bu shi da yu 05:07, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to you both! :) Ambi 05:40, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  A helpful template 

message: I've created the Wikipedia:Australian wikipedians' notice board/WikiProjects page for all your cross-project discussion needs. T.P.K. 14:35, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cross-project discussions 

message: Wikipedia:WikiProject Melbourne/Parks and gardens and Wikipedia:WikiProject Melbourne/Freeways and highways are up and running. T.P.K. 08:54, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just so you know 

message: Thanks for the update, TPK - looks a lot better.
Now, to go about getting this going again...perhaps it's about time I did some more work on Melbourne-related articles. Ambi 11:42, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Page renovations

message: How did VFL Park and Waverley Park end up of duplicates of eachother, one of which is a stub and the other of which is a completed article? Anyone willing to merge them? Somebody in the WWW 02:55, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: FTR, it looks like this did actually get done. Ambi 11:31, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I did it. Somebody in the WWW 23:22, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[VFL Park]] and [[Waverley Park]]

message: I was browsing around yesterday, and discovered :Category:London attractions. 125 articles, and three subcategories. We've been doing pretty well so far, but it looks like they're far ahead of us on this point - it'd be good to start catching up.
I'm going to start hunting around in the Melways and the WWW for places that need articles, but if anyone's got any ideas now, it'd be handy. Ambi 11:31, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, lets think. Luna Park? The Melbourne show? Tourist railways? The Hawthorn tram museum? That's all i can think of for now. Somebody in the WWW 05:17, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added :Category:Melbourne attractions to the Useful categories. Added State Library of Victoria and CERES to this list. Should West Gate Bridge go under attractions or landmarks? mmm...Landmarks I think. --Takver 02:49, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: definitely not an attraction, but somewhat of a landmark. Xtra 03:14, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently we have both :Category:Melbourne attractions and :Category:Melbourne landmarks - I think we should just use one or the other. My vote is for landmarks, since that's how the project page is organised, and attractions is probably just a subset of landmarks anyway. --bainer 00:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer to get rid of landmarks, unless there's a precedent for it being used elsewhere. It's too vague, and clashes with attractions - which I'd prefer to use here for simplicity, seeing as its being used for London (and therefore probably other cities too). Ambi 01:22, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text:  I agree with Ambi. We should get rid of Landmarks. The two current entries easily fit with attractions.--Takver 01:32, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text:  i dissagree. landmarks and attractions are entirely different things. Xtra 02:58, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just don't think we need the landmarks category. Things like the West Gate Bridge (which is clearly not an attraction) can just go in a Melbourne bridges category. Ambi 07:29, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  good point. but dont create a new melbourne bridge category. just put it in the :Category:Bridges in Australia. Xtra 07:41, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: How exactly are landmarks and attractions entirely different things, Xtra? And what makes the Werribee Open Range Zoo a landmark, and Crown Casino an attraction, just for example? I have to say I'm confused, and in favour of merging these categories. Whether the remaining category is called Landmarks or Attractions, I don't care. But some of the articles in :Category:Melbourne attractions at the moment just don't make any sense, and they need to be pruned. Melbourne Central an attraction - I'd say so. The Upfield bike path an attraction? Or the Collingwood Children's Farm? Come on. We should decide together which articles deserve to be called 'attractions' or 'landmarks' and which do not - looking at them from the perspective of international tourists, not locals - rather than everyone adding what they consider to be an 'attraction' to the list in a piecemeal way. And of course, we just plain need more articles. T.PK 11:02, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: It looks like we've got a bit of work to do

message: A few days ago I removed Melbourne Wireless from :Category:Melbourne, as I didn't think it fits into the category. What do others think? Should it go in the category or not? Somebody in the WWW 05:17, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Ambi 07:24, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: It's a company, so no it doesn't belong in the city's category. A possible Wireless network coverage in Melbourne could do the trick though. (Not sure what kind of coverage there is, it may not be significant or varied enough for an article, but hey). TPK 11:58, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be interested in reading such an article, but I'm not the one to write it. Ambi 07:29, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Does this belong in [[:Category:Melbourne]]?

message: I've added a new (slightly-expanded) stub for the CERES environment park. Hopefully I can get down there soon and get some photos. Their official site has a heap of current information, but little on the history and the projects it's hosted over the years. Is someone else here more familiar? --mordemur 09:10, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  CERES 

message: I was about to add a new article for Hoddle Street, Melbourne (which many articles link to) when I noticed there's already a "Hoddle Highway" that covers a portion of Hoddle Street (from the Eastern Freeway to Bridge Road) and a portion of Punt Road (from Bridge Road to CityLink at the Yarra).  Move, merge, or do Hoddle Street, Melbourne and Hoddle Highway really need their own articles? --mordemur 10:17, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd probably leave them split - the content could be slightly different for each. But that's just me - I'm not too fussed either way. Ambi 11:14, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering there is only a tiny, fairly boring piece of plain old "Street" left after the "Highway", it depends on whether we want to keep the cultural, shopping strip kind of information seperate from the technical, highway network information. Though I would err towards combining them, because they wouldn't be huge articles on their own. And after all, it's the same road either way. TPK 12:03, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hoddle Highway extends all the way down to the Windsor, I think this is enough to distinguish Hoddle Street as a separate entity. Anyway, it's been added. Have a play... --mordemur 12:35, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: there is no such thing as hoddle highway. it is a fabrication and it should be redirected to hoddle street. whereas in my melway, it lists both dandenong rd and princess highway (which are the same road), there is no reference anywhere to "hoddle highway". Xtra 13:40, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: i suggest that someone who knows how to should merge the articles. Xtra 13:51, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In my Melway (Edition 25, 1998), Dandenong Rd. is bracketed with Princes Hwy just as Hoddle St./Punt Rd is bracketed with Hoddle Hwy. --mordemur 14:00, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: my melway makes no mention of the hoddle hwy. however the online version does. it must be a recent invention. Xtra 00:56, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the same as how Maroondah Hwy also includes Whitehorse Rd and Cotham Rd. A highway can be made up of a number of smaller streets (think the Princes Hwy). I'd keep Hoddle Hwy one its own (describing the route) and have separate articles for Hoddle St and Punt Rd (the components of it). --bainer 01:54, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoddle Street 

message: I have been working on developing the :Category:Cycling in Melbourne section. Melbourne has an active cycling culture for cycle racing, cycle commuting, and recreational cycling. It has a developed set of shared bicycle trails along the river and creek systems as well as on-road bicycle lanes and shared use paths. To date I have been working on writing the articles on cycle trails, and I expect to continue to do this. There are a few organisations and events which also should be included as being notable. Here is my plan so far. I have completed 6 of the 19 cycle trails, although I hope that others will contribute some of the articles:
--Takver 06:48, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cycling in Melbourne 

message: I would like to fix up the problem of Melbourne's suburb adjacency boxes once and for all. For anyone who is interested, please take a peek at the old talk at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Melbourne/Suburbs. My one and only gripe with the most recent incarnation of the template is that it allows no more than one suburb per cell, when Melbourne's subdivisional geography is far too complicated for that to work in a great many, if not most, cases. The reason it is this way is to make editing easier by knocking off some 's and 's when an editor types the template call. Making editing easier is no reason to dilute article accuracy. So I propose two changes, one is to allow more than one suburb in each cell. The other is to delete all the various other templates and keep one and only one, and to roll this out to every suburb article. Perhaps keeping the 'Please help fill in this table' placeholder version until they're all done.
My version of the template is thus: (look at the code)
Melbourne suburbs near ()	Melbourne suburbs near ()	Melbourne suburbs near ()
                         	                         	
                         	                         	
                         	                         	
Suburbs can be entered this way as "Eaglemont, Ivanhoe East", (with a "" if needs be), rather than entering just "Eaglemont" and not being able to string together whatever combination of suburbs is relevant.
This would replace: Template:Infobox MelbourneSuburbTable4, Template:MelbSuburbBox1, Template:MelbSuburbBox2, and the various in situ code in articles, as well as any other superflous templates that might still be around.
:Eek! What was I on about? TPK 06:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Those suburb tables 

message: Last couple of weeks I have been busy creating and filling out articles on northern suburbs, especially the suburbs of the City of Moreland. I have now completed the suburbs of this municipality. Some articles have more detail than others, but they are now more than basic stubs all with a working suburb navigation table. Much work remains to be done in neighboring municipalities. The progress percentage for suburbs probably should be updated in response. --Takver 04:23, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work! If only all Melbourne stubs were this fleshed out. :( Ambi 06:09, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Northern Suburbs 

message: I am a newbie to Wikipedia and have been finding my feet by filling in the suburb navigation tables for the Shire of Mornington Peninsula and the Shire of Yarra Ranges. While doing this work it occurred to me that an enormous amount of work will be required to create articles for all of these suburbs. Has anyone considered undertaking a publicity campaign for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Melbourne in order to increase the numbers of volunteers to the project. Most of the Local Government Areas of Melbourne produce a newspaper and I am sure would be interested in an article on Wikipedia and their local area. regards - Eric.
: thats great to see Eric! In terms of publicity, word of mouth I find is generally best. Maybe even showing a friend how easy it is to edit and correct an article! --Takver 12:12, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publicity Campaign 

message: The Victoria Heritage Register has a searchable online database of all their registered sites. I'm finding it incredibly fascinating, and there's an incredible amount of information for WikiProject Melbourne. The site is here : http://ndoiext01.doi.vic.gov.au/doi/hvolr.nsf Cnwb 06:26, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats certainly a useful resource for researching historical information for suburbs, or any Victorian locality. You can be sure I'll make some use of it. --Takver 10:18, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks quite handy. While we're on the topic, List of National Trust properties in Australia is looking pretty empty, and there's a few well known properties in Melbourne that could do with articles... Ambi 12:45, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victorian Heritage Register Online 

message: Things have really slowed down with this lately - I'm one of many who hasn't really had the chance to do anything Melbourne-related in quite some time. Is there any interest in starting some sort of the collaboration of the fortnight? While getting an article up to featured status is probably a bit much to ask, I think if we keep our expectations down, and look to simply get a decent article where there wasn't before, we could start to make some progress again. Now that I've got through a backlog of assignments that's been bugging me for the past month, I'd be happy to start working on some. Ambi 01:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Collaboration of the Fortnight?

message: Hello, I was wondering where Melbourne theatres would go in the context of this WikiProject, as I have just written an article about the Melbourne Theatre Company.
We have several notable ones like the Playhouse Theatre and the Malthouse Theatre, which may be one in the same, and also the Princess Theatre and all the Marriner theatres.
It might be good to think about other (notable) arts organisations as well.
--EuropracBHIT 09:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. I fixed some links and added a few more. Perhaps you should add a link in Melbourne#Culture_and_sport? --Takver 11:24, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Melbourne theatres and their companies

message: The last few days I have been putting some effort into Indigenous history in Victoria. I have started and worked on the Gunai/Kurnai page of Gippsland . Still needs lots more work, but a decent start. The Kulin and Wurundjeri pages were very basic stubs which I've slowly increased. It's at the point where more detailed history needs to be added, including specific articles on languages, and Wurundjeri/Kulin elders at the time of settlement. The early History of Melbourne, in particular, is told from quite a eurocentric viewpoint, which these proposed articles could offer some needed balance in the historical account. The aboriginal elders of the early contact period had a difficult task guiding their people. I also think Joy Murphy Wandin, as a current Wurundjeri elder and distinguished person in Melbourne, deserves an article.--Takver 14:37, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, great - this has been an area which we've really badly neglected up until now. I should do the Ngunnawal (Canberra) and Wautharong (the area where I grew up) one of these days. Ambi 23:54, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's somewhat of an incomplete redlink list at List of Australian Aboriginal tribes, this seems to be more about language groups than individual mobs. There's a good map floating around that I'm sure many people would have seen (I can't find a better copy online than this) which should be useful for updating the redlink list. I'm studying all this sort of stuff at the moment at uni, so I'll be willing to put some stuff together. I was thinking of doing the Yorta Yorta people soon (even though they're not really Melbourne). I'm also working on a series of articles about Vincent Lingiari and the Wave Hill walk-off if anyone was interested in that (I know that's not Melbourne either, but it's interesting). --bainer 09:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Indigenous History

message: I have been steadily plugging away at Wikipedia:WikiProject Melbourne/Parks and gardens. Understanding the historical development  and present social use of the many parks and gardens provides an important insight into Melbourne, and its reputation as a garden city. Clement Hodgkinson played a pivotal landscape design role. I have certainly learned a lot myself. I reckon about half the articles have now been created (10 out of 21), all with a reasonable amount of content. At some stage a template might be good to standardise basic information and to format all the articles similarly. An introductory article on Melbourne Parks and Gardens might be useful to pull links to all the information together and summarise historical, horticultural and social importance for Melbourne, so it can be linked to in the main Melbourne article. I am about to start the article on Royal Park, Melbourne. Feel free to jump in and write a new article or edit and refine existing existing ones.--Takver 14:37, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Researching an area like this can be really satisfying, and they're looking really quite good - nice work. One thing I might suggest is that you might want to watch the dot points in the history sections - generally, I think paragraphs tend to be better received. Ambi 23:43, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Melbourne Parks and Gardens

message: I have started the Melbourne Institutions project page. Feel free to add to or amend this basic framework. I have started the :Category:Melbourne institutions as part of this, but needs articles added to this category. --Takver 05:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Melbourne Institutions

message: I just wikified the Caulfield North, Victoria article, which I came across while doing a little new pages patrol, but I'm not from Australia and don't actually know anything about it. Can someone please review and fact check the article? It was created by an anonymous user who had made a few dubious edits. Cheers! --DavidConrad 05:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed the slight errors in there. TPK 06:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caulfield North 

message: Has there ever been a Melbourne Wikipedia Meetup? Would anybody be interested in organising (or help organising) one? Cnwb 23:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that's resounding silence. Josh Parris # 03:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See AWNB.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 03:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Melbourne Wikipedia Meetup

message: Not really sure on what is legal or not legal with regards to showing a melbourne transport map on wiki... the article on SF's Bay Area Rapid Transit shows a map. Would it appropriate for us to do the same for melbourne? or is there copyright issues regarding that? I've created a simplified version from the metlink website as an example.. . What do you think? Would it constitute fair use? Diliff 02:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Melbourne transport network page

message: Discussion on the naming of stub templates relating to this and other Australian city wikiprojects is in progress at WP:WSS/P#Australian cities. Feel free to comment. Grutness...wha? 01:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub templates

message: The changeover to the new stub types has started. The changes for melbourrne are these:
*Instead of  leading to , there is now  leading to . This brings Melbourne into line with all other cities that have separate stubs.
*Instead of  leading to , there is now  leading to . This allows for parks, rivers, hills, and any other geographic features to also go into this category (did the project even know about this category? It was almost unused!)
A couple of other minor points: 
*Buildings in Melbourne should be double-stubbed with  and  (there should soon be an  for these);
*Streets in Melbourne should be double-stubbed with  and ;
*Railway-related stubs in Melbourne should be double-stubbed with  and 
We at WP:WSS hope these changes aren't inconvenient, and will help your project! Grutness...wha? 00:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Update