Talk:City of Darebin/Archive 1

Image
Hey, I noticed you reverted my revert of your edit. I would like to explain why I reverted it: Please respond with your side so hopefully we can achieve consensus. Thanks! --SwiftyPeep (talk) 03:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Writing "Poorly repaired footpaths and weeds infested traffic islands plague the Council." in my view, isn't WP:IMPARTIAL (I would say it is a dispute as there is a fair bit of talking about it in the Darebin community. I would suggest also reading WP:ASSERT as I would argue it fails WP:YESPOV
 * Images should generally be significant to the subject per MOS:IRELEV. There are many roads in the City of Darebin, some of which are nice and some of terrible-looking and I don't see why this one is sigifcant nor do I see how IRELEV shouldn't apply.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on City of Darebin. 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.arts.monash.edu.au/ncas/multimedia/gazetteer/list/darebin.html
 * Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20090613170404/http://www.darebinlibraries.vic.gov.au/ to http://www.darebinlibraries.vic.gov.au/

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) 10:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

POV tag
I have added a tag to this article due to the Council section which displays a clear political bias against one political party. This bias is particularly acute given the extremely poor sourcing and reliance on a primary source which is a violation of WP:NOR. If this issue is not resolved within a reasonable time-frame the section will need to be removed completely so that the only material that is left concerning council is the material below "Current councillors" heading. TarnishedPathtalk 11:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Agree with this. I would add that the 'Controversies' section could also fall into this discussion. I think that entire section could be absorbed into another heading and rewritten into a few sentences summarising any key topics. Avoiding 'Criticism' sections is best I'd say, as observed in the WP:CRIT essay. Takerlamar (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Takerlamar, while I have a dislike for sections titled "Controversies" and think they can do with having the section being renamed at the very least, the contents of that section are at least verifiable by reliable secondary sources. The stuff in the Council Section, above the "Current Councillors" heading, I can't say that which is what makes it so problematic. Remembering that some of the people mentioned in that section are probably still alive. Tarnished<b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 22:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

'Governance' section
What do people think of the discussion of ethnicity in the section on 'council governance'? It strikes me as something that could either be removed entirely as largely irrelevant to an LGA or condensed into one or two sentences. Takerlamar (talk) 09:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I will add to this discussion the commentary around CEOs, preference deals, etc. I don't think that they are appropriate for such an article, as they strike me more as analysis rather than facts. Any thoughts from people? Takerlamar (talk) 09:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * , I think the section is now called "Council". I agree that this is 'fishy', as it is mostly (entirely?) un-sourced! I have tried to clean it up, but it certainly appears there is POV editing here. For example here, I have restored content and removed POV like
 * "Mr Dev's softly-spoken manner and warm smile was put to good use by Philip Shanahan to handle many controversial issues such as the Merri Parade Bridge road works and flooding in Bundoora"
 * Again, un-sourced. Another recent big deletion, without any explanation, (now restored) was here. My full edits to the page are here.--220  of  Borg 05:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * , some good improvements, thank you! I'm still not sure about some of the content, e.g. the extensive commentary on the ethnic backgrounds of councillors. No other LGA page to my knowledge has any similar information and it could easily be condensed into a single paragraph giving a brief outline.
 * "They are synonymous for being extremely difficult and autonomous towards private residents..."
 * Really sounds like someone has an axe to grind... Takerlamar (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, a disgruntled ratepayer likely! seems to be the go to 'expert' on BLP issues. Having mentioned them here I'm sure they will give it some attention. If it isn't/can't be sourced it goes, and ethnicity doesn't seem to be particularly relevant anyway.  has also chipped in  I see, though not the issue under discussion. 220  of  Borg 07:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)