Talk:Elder Place, Fremantle

on the recent deletion of some material
This version of the article includes (with my emphasis):

I don't think it helps the reader to describe the location of the street relative to a location that "would have been" ie does not exist.

So far as I can see, the goods shed and quay are on the other side of the railway line and the other side of a different street - not really relevant to Elder Place.

If a specific shed is along or next to Elder Place, it might help to state specifically which shed it is. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * OK fullstop territory, good faith editing - while an article is in process, could be something that allows for some things to be verified - however if this is the need of the editor, the verifiable and justifcable components of these articles to withstand this level of query, will now be in abeyance, as qualifying with refs and specifics depends on certain references - WP:NODEADLINES is hereby invoked JarrahTree 13:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * some things to be verified... — I'm not disputing the truth or verifiability of the material I removed, I'm disputing the relevance to the article.
 * "what would have been the southern shore of the Swan River" - if Elder Place place was actually built on the southern shore, and/or it actually existed along the shore after the promontory was removed, and the shoreline was subsequently moved when the harbour was build, then the article should says so explicitly.
 * if there is some explicit connection between the older goods sheds and Victoria Quay and Elder Place (other than the former being further north than the railway line), then say so
 * Mitch Ames (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)