Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Melbourne/Suburbs


 * Archive 1 - (May 25 2004 to September 22 2004) - mostly suburb table discussions

Current Suburb box syntax
For simplicities sake I have renamed the Infoboxes:

MelbSuburbBox1
Syntax:

MelbSuburbBox2
Syntax:


 * Box1 advantages
 * Simpler box syntax - keeps pages easy to edit


 * Box2 advantages
 * Allows for multiple suburbs per cell
 * Allows for article titles outside the (suburb), Victoria standard

-- Chuq 01:51, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Proposal for highlighting bodies of water
Many people seem to have raised the issue of highlighting bodies of water conveniently and clearly in the current box format, so I've come up with this:

Template (temporary location): User:Evan C/Sandbox

It works, and isn't hard to do. It's not a perfectly "clean" solution, but we're not going to get one with the current templating system. I haven't put it into the real template yet in case there are issues with it that I'm not seeing.

Cheers --Evan C (Talk) 02:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've put this into action at Template:MelbSuburbBox1/Water (likewise for MSB2). I didn't want to modify the main template for now, but I'm beginning to use the water one where needed. --Evan C (Talk) 10:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Brunswick Duplication
I know there is a wikipedia place to report things like this, but I thought we could get it cleaned up ourselves quicker, so reporting it here. Duplication of Brunswick, Victoria and Brunswick, Melbourne. I don't have time right now, but perhaps someone could make sure the Victoria one has all the info of the Melbourne one, and delete if it does? -- Generica 05:13, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * Jeez, how did that happen? Well I've listed it for merging and included the templates; I would merge it myself but it looks like quite the undertaking. T.P.K. 05:35, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Would just be bad luck that the only (so far) Melbourne suburbs article that is a duplicate, isn't a stub :P -- Chuq 07:22, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * A quick browse suggests they are very similar. It almost seems like they were based on the same common material, so it shouldn't be too hard.  That said, I step back from the line of volunteers :) -- Generica 07:42, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Sydney WikiProject
Hope you all don't mind, but I'm going to "steal" a lot of your concepts! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:32, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Usefulness of these tables
Now, don't get me wrong, I think there is some use in geographically linking the suburbs with these tables, but recently a sum total of two people have spoken out against them! Anyway, that leads to a valid point - we may consider them useful, but that is our naturally biased opinion, havig spent so much energy on the whole thing. Wikipians at large may not agree. I don't know, so I suggest we open this up on the Village Pump and ask for some general opinions on whether or not people would find these tables useful. If the vast majority think not, it may need rethinking, but there's only one way to find out...

Also, if we are going to work with the WPS folks on a shared format for suburb articles, we ought to have just the one discussion spot, not two. I would naturally suggest here ( :P ), but whatever works is fine with me.

T.P.K. 06:21, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I definitely think a comment on VP would be good. Maybe the discussion could be held at WikiProject Cities pages, and linked from the VP.  (Having it on WP:Melb would stir the Sydney people up!  That would be as crazy as, say, having an AFL Grand Final at the MCG with no Melbourne teams playing ;) )The suburb articles definitely need some form of geographical identification, whether it be a locator map of Melbourne, or an adjacent suburb box, or something along those lines. -- Chuq 12:38, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, from VP it appears that the Canadians have done it and they've been kept there dispite some negative feedback. I don't think we need to worry though. T.P.K. 08:42, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Reply at Australian wikipedians' notice board/WikiProjects -- Chuq 12:44, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The current format of the suburb adjacency tables has two flaws:

1. Bodies of water such as Port Phillip should be rendered in a different background colour to make it clearer to the casual browser that it is a body of water and not a suburb.

2. Where a suburb would fill more than one adjacency cell in the table, there is no way to implement rowspan and colspan attributes in the table tags. To see how adjacency cells can span more than one cell, see the entry for Springvale South where the adjacent suburbs of Keysborough and Dingley Village both span two cells.

Can the wiki be altered to include these attributes if they are not already present? --B.d.mills 01:53, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * These are known problems. I believe that the ease of using the templates outweighs them.  No 1, would be good to do, would be nice if we could include a variable like wnorthwest=yes and have the template code insert the right bgcolor tag to make the northwest cell blue, but the template code isn't that powerful.  No 2, its just my opinion, but I think it looks better with the suburb name being duplicated in two different cells - it makes it more obvious they are cardinal directions. -- Chuq 03:22, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just looking at them for the first time, the tables seem to work well, apart from the fact that there are some incosistencies in certain suburbs (like Hawthorn East). Tim 02:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I've updated Hawthorn East to the new template. I lived there for 20 years, so I felt it was my duty :)  I'm actually not sure I've got it right - I was sort of going off the Melways site, and ended up with Kew being both north and northwest.  As always, feel free to update it. --Stevage 13:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Progress update Jan 31, 2006
I have looked at all articles in the List of Melbourne suburbs and made a guesstimate of percentage complete for each one. I have rated each article between 0.10 for a basic stub to 1.00 for a virtually complete article. Examples of complete articles would include Brunswick, Frankston, Belgrave, Doncaster East, Somers and North Melbourne.

I am unsure as to which of the outer suburbs are included within the boundary of Greater Melbourne. Does anyone know if there is a definitive list?

On the assumption that all suburbs in the list require articles, then the overall progress for Melbourne suburbs, as at 31 January, 2006, is 24%.

Based on the above numbers a league table of Melbourne Cities and Shires looks like this:

Note: Some suburbs are shared between cities, hence numbers such as 8.50 suburbs.

If you live in an area down at the bottom of the table perhaps you might consider adopting one or two of your local suburbs for future articles. Eric.Cuddy Wifter 04:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Cuddy/Eric, you are my new hero! I live in Knox, and I study in Whitehorse. I also have some ties to cities/shires at the bottom of the table, like Cardinia and even the Mornington Penisula/Yarra Ranges. This will be a good idea to include the 80 WikiMelburnians, no matter where they happen to live. Let's get some good work done this fortnight. I'm sure suburbs like Cranbourne and Lyndhurst can be worked on. --EuropracBHIT 06:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC).

Council Templates
Hello. I'm from Adelaide and I have come and created council templates along the lines of those in Adelaide. Likewise templates have been created for all the councils in Melbourne, which can be added appropriately by. The list of subrubs was based on the corresponding article for the council. I have been adding these things at the bottom of the relevant suburb. Blnguyen 04:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * They have been added to all the suburbs under the respective councils.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 23:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

A LOT of suburb adjacency tables filled in
Just to notify anyone interested, I've just spent the last 5 hours or so (hey - I lost track of time :P) filling in the table of every suburb that had the MelbSuburbBoxIncomplete template. They're mostly 3x3s, for now anyway. However I couldn't locate Clayton North on Street-Directory.com.au or in my hardcopy Melway, so I couldn't do that.

Must sleep now. Cheers --Evan C 16:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Great effort Evan. While you were sleeping I filled in Clayton North for you. - Cuddy Wifter 23:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'm sure there are many, many, many more suburbs - even metro suburbs that didn't have the MelbSuburbBoxIncomplete template on them, so we have a long way to go yet... --Evan C (Talk) 02:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Naming convention
Why exactly is the naming convention for the article title "Suburb, Victoria"? Shouldn't it just be "Suburb" when there is no ambiguity with any other town? I agree that there should always be a redirect for the "Suburb, Victoria" form, for uniformity, but the ", Victoria" bit really seems unnecessary. Not only that, it doesn't reflect any real world convention...I've never heard of "Hawthorn East, Victoria" for example. I don't see many non-wikipedia non-address appearances on Google either. Stevage 13:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * A uniformed approach that will almost always work is best. It's best to always be able to pull up a suburb's article (at its real title) using a simple format that applies for all Victorian suburbs. Honestly, I think other cities should follow suit if they don't already have such a naming convention.
 * Of course, if there's no ambiguity the simple "Suburb" name could redirect, but the articles should follow a convention.
 * --Evan C (Talk) 14:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Progress update April 19, 2006
I have recalculated my guesstimate of percentage complete for Melbourne Suburbs articles. Here is the updated "league table" of Melbourne Cities and Shires.


 * Note: Some suburbs are shared between cities, hence numbers such as 8.50 suburbs.

The overall progress for Melbourne suburbs, as at 19 April, 2006, is 29%. My estimate is that 18 articles are complete, 62 are more than 50% complete, 161 are between 20 and 50% complete, 183 are stubs and 55 have not been started.

The following suburbs are estimated at over 70% complete. May I suggest that all participants in the Melbourne Project consider this list and adopt one or two of these articles which, with a little effort, can boost the completed list. If you wish to look at examples of completed articles check these :Brunswick, Frankston, Belgrave, Doncaster East, Somers and North Melbourne.

City of Melbourne City of Port Phillip City of Yarra City of Hume City of Moonee Valley City of Moreland Shire of Nillumbik City of Whittlesea City of Boroondara City of Knox City of Whitehorse Shire of Yarra Ranges City of Bayside City of Kingston City of Maribyrnong City of Wyndham
 * Carlton
 * West Melbourne
 * Port Melbourne
 * St Kilda
 * Abbotsford
 * Fitzroy
 * Broadmeadows
 * Sunbury
 * Tullamarine
 * Strathmore
 * Coburg North
 * Glenroy
 * North Warrandyte
 * Mill Park
 * Canterbury
 * Kew
 * Surrey Hills
 * Ferntree Gully
 * Blackburn North
 * Blackburn South
 * Box Hill North
 * Mount Dandenong
 * Selby
 * Black Rock
 * Dingley Village
 * Footscray
 * Hoppers Crossing
 * Point Cook
 * Werribee

Cuddy Wifter 06:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Progress update August 2, 2006
Update of Melbourne Suburbs articles. Here is the updated "league table" of Melbourne Cities and Shires.


 * Note: Some suburbs are shared between cities, hence numbers such as 8.50 suburbs.

The overall progress for Melbourne suburbs, as at 2 Augustl, 2006, is 32%. My estimate is that 22 articles are complete, 75 are more than 50% complete, 176 are between 20 and 50% complete, 163 are stubs and 48 have not been started. - Cuddy Wifter 04:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Progress update April 12, 2007
Since the last time I did a progress update on Melbourne Suburbs articles the WikiProject Australia/Assessment project has appeared on the scene. While doing this update I have also assessed all suburb articles for quality and importance in accordance with these Assessment standards. My previous scale of assessment of articles has been mainly based on the percentage content of articles, with the assumption of a complete article being somewhere between class GA and B on the Quality scale in the Assessment project.

The overall progress for Melbourne suburbs, as at 12 April, 2007, is now estimated at 39%. My guesstimate is that 24 articles are virtually complete, 115 are over 50% complete, 209 are between 20 and 50% complete, 116 are stubs and 19 have not been started. - Cuddy Wifter 01:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a list of the last two cats btw? I'd be happy to look at it though am busy this week and next. Orderinchaos 05:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * These are the suburbs which are a very basic stub article:


 * For suburbs/townships which do not have an article, see the red links at List of Melbourne suburbs.

- Cuddy Wifter 01:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) I'll see if I can improve on any of the above, and fill in the missing ones (I designed an Access database back in Nov to spit out infoboxes, so might bring that back on board). Orderinchaos 06:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Progress update January 17, 2008
I have taken a look at progress for Melbourne suburbs articles which, as at January 17, 2008, I estimate at 44% complete. My guesstimate is that 26 articles are virtually complete, 143 are over 50% complete, 190 are between 45 and 25% complete, 107 are basic stubs and 17 have not been started. Anyone looking to "adopt" a Melbourne related article should check out any of the above list of suburbs which are mostly still stubs. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)